Peace in the Middle East

Israel Faces War Crimes Charges Following Gaza Slaughter

Mark C. Eades — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:51:27 EST

(Your Tax Dollars at Work in the Middle East)

The state of Israel is facing charges of war crimes following the slaughter of innocent civilians including hundreds of children in its recent campaign against Palestinian militants on the Gaza Strip. Israel's powerful ally, the United States, also faces charges of complicity in the slaughter as Palestinians declare: "This Damage Made in USA."

UN human rights expert Richard Falk said on Thursday that the recent Israeli military operation on the Gaza Strip "raises the specter of systematic war crimes" and needs to be investigated. Falk told journalists in Geneva from his home in California that he had little doubt as to the "unavoidably inhuman character of a large-scale military operation of the sort that Israel has initiated... against an essentially defenseless population." Charging that "unlawful targets have been selected" by Israeli forces during the fighting, Falk insisted that Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip including children and the wounded were effectively trapped in a war zone and prevented from fleeing.

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has issued demands for a full explanation of "outrageous" Israeli attacks on UN facilities on the Gaza Strip including a school used as a refuge for civilians, killing dozens. The UN chief noted that Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert had promised to provide results of an Israeli inquiry into the attacks "on an urgent basis" and said he would then decide on "appropriate follow-up action." On January 12, the 47-member UN Human Rights Council voted by a large majority to launch an investigation into "grave" human rights violations by Israeli forces against Palestinians. Israel is also facing questions from human rights groups regarding the use of illegal weapons, including white phosphorus munitions, against Palestinian civilians on the Gaza Strip.

These charges come amid renewed calls for a global boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel from groups such as the Global BDS Movement. Recently, Canadian journalist Naomi Klein wrote in support of such a boycott: "The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa." Some are also calling for a boycott of US exports for its continuing support of Israeli actions against Palestinians.

The Palestinian death toll from Israel's recent war on Gaza currently stands at around 1300, most of whom were innocent civilians, and around a third of whom were children. Ten Israeli soldiers and three civilians were killed in Israel during the same period, an indicator of Israel's massively disproportionate response to Palestinian attacks on Israelis. A total of twenty-eight Israelis have been killed by Palestinian rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip since 2001, a tiny fraction of the number of Palestinians killed in Israel's recent Gaza actions alone. These numbers echo casualty figures from the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict which consistently show innocent Palestinian dead including children massively outnumbering Israelis.

Rocket attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip deserve both condemnation by the international community and a proportionate response by Israel. The killing of one Israeli in a rocket attack does not, however, entitle Israel to respond by slaughtering twenty, thirty, or forty innocent Palestinian civilians. Such slaughter, furthermore, will no more stop Hamas' rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip than it stopped Hezbollah's rocket attacks from Lebanon in 2006. Just as Hezbollah could declare victory in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war simply by surviving to fight another day, so Hamas can declare victory in Gaza this day. Meanwhile, Israel increasingly becomes a pariah state in the eyes of the world, as does the United States for its complicity in the slaughter. Ever-growing anger particularly in the Arab world serves America's national security interests no better than it serves Israel's.

Behold, America: Your tax dollars at work in the Middle East.

Out of the tragedy of Gaza, perhaps, will come renewed opportunity to hold Israel accountable for its actions, to press for a new US policy on the Middle East, for peace, and for an end to Israel's long and bloody occupation of the Palestinian Territories. Boycott, divestment, and sanctions efforts such as those promoted by the Global BDS Movement have a proven track record of success as in the case of South Africa, and deserve our support. UN efforts to hold Israel accountable for its actions also deserve our support, but are likely to require UN Security Council action of the type America with its power of veto most often and most notoriously obstructs. Pressure, therefore, needs to be applied to the White House and Congress for a new US approach to the conflict and a new US attitude in the UN Security Council. Whether our new ambassador to the UN offers active support with a "yes" vote or passive permission by abstaining on UN efforts to hold Israel accountable for its actions, our message to the new administration regarding these efforts can be stated clearly and briefly as follows: NO VETO!

Sources: Agence France Presse, Time, Los Angeles Times, Haaretz, New Straits Times, Bay Area Indymedia, B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch.

Slide show: Gaza Massacre by Sabbah.

Photo gallery: Child victims of Gaza violence.

Contacts:

The White House

US Mission to the UN

Contact your US Senators

Contact your US Representative

Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com

A New Day: The 44th President of the United States of America BARACK OBAMA

Hope4Unity — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:59:16 EST

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

President Barack Obama

CHANGE AT LAST!

Native American Prayer

Oh, Great Spirit
Whose voice I hear in the winds,
And whose breath gives life to all the world,
hear me, I am small and weak,
I need your strength and wisdom.
Let me walk in beauty and make my eyes ever behold
the red and purple sunset.
Make my hands respect the things you have
made and my ears sharp to hear your voice.
Make me wise so that I may understand the things
you have taught my people.
Let me learn the lessons you have
hidden in every leaf and rock.

I seek strength, not to be greater than my brother,
but to fight my greatest enemy - myself.
Make me always ready to come to you
with clean hands and straight eyes.
So when life fades, as the fading sunset,
my Spirit may come to you without shame.

Ralph Nader's article about the sixty-year invasion of Israel to Palestine. And the blind folded voting in Congress supporting the aggressors.

Moses — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:47:53 EST

In the Public Interest
by Ralph Nader
January 16, 2009

In the long sixty-year tortured history of the Palestinian expulsion from their lands, Congress has maintained that it is always the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority, and now Hamas who are to blame for all hostilities and their consequences with the Israeli government.

The latest illustration of this Washington puppet show, backed by the most modern weapons and billions of taxpayer dollars annually sent to Israel, was the grotesquely one-sided Resolutions whisked through the Senate and the House of Representatives.

While a massive bombing and invasion of Gaza was underway, the resolution blaming Hamas for all the civilian casualties and devastation—99% of it inflicted on Palestinians—zoomed through the Senate by voice vote and through the House by a vote of 390 to 5 with 22 legislators voting present.

There is more dissent against this destruction of Gaza among the Israeli people, the Knesset, the Israeli media, and Jewish-Americans than among the dittoheads on Capitol Hill.

The reasons for such near-unanimous support for Israeli actions—no matter how often they are condemned by peace advocates such as Bishop Desmond Tutu, United Nations resolutions, the World Court and leading human rights groups inside and outside of Israel, are numerous. The pro-Israeli government lobby, and the right-wing Christian evangelicals, lubricated by campaign money of many Political Action Committees (PACs) certainly are key.

There is also more than a little bigotry in Congress against Arabs and Muslims, reinforced by the mass media yahoos who set new records for biased reporting each time this conflict erupts.

The bias is clear. It is always the Palestinians’ fault. Right-wingers who would never view the U.S. government as perfect see the Israeli government as never doing anything wrong. Liberals who do not hesitate to criticize the U.S. military view all Israeli military attacks, invasions and civilian devastation as heroic manifestations of Israeli defense.

The inversion of history and the scope of amnesia know no limits. What about the fact that the Israeli government drove Palestinians from their lands in 1947-48 with tens of thousands pushed into the Gaza strip. No problem to Congress.

Then the fact that the Israeli government cruelly occupied, in violation of UN resolutions, the West Bank and Gaza in 1967 and only removed its soldiers and colonists from Gaza (1.5 million people in a tiny area twice the size of the District of Columbia) in 2005. To Congress, the Palestinians deserved it.
Then when Hamas was freely elected to run Gaza, the Israeli authorities cut off the tax revenues on imports that belonged to the Gaza government. This threw the Gazans into a fiscal crisis—they were unable to pay their civil servants and police.

In 2006, the Israelis added to their unrelieved control of air, water and land around the open-air prison by establishing a blockade. The natives became restless. Under international law, a blockade is an act of war. Primitive rockets, called by reporters “wildly inaccurate” were fired into Israel. During this same period, Israeli soldiers and artillery and missiles would go into Gaza at will and take far more lives and cause far more injuries than those incurred by those rockets. Civilians—especially children, the infirm and elderly—died or suffered week after week for lack of medicines, medical equipment, food, electricity, fuel and water which were embargoed by the Israelis.

Then the Israeli bombing followed by the invasion during the past three weeks with what prominent Israeli writer Gideon Levy called “a brutal and violent operation…far beyond what was needed for protecting the people in its south.” Mr. Levy observed what the president of the United Nations General Assembly, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann called a war against “a helpless and defenseless imprisoned population.”

The horror of being trapped from fleeing the torrent of the most modern weapons of war from the land, air and seas is reflected in this passage from Amira Hass, writing in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

“The earth shaking under your feet, clouds of choking smoke, explosions like a fireworks display, bombs bursting into all-consuming flames that cannot be extinguished with water, mushroom clouds of pinkish-red smoke, suffocating gas, harsh burns on the skin, extraordinary maimed live and dead bodies.”

Ms. Hass is pointing to the use of new anti-civilian weapons used on the Gazan people. So far there have been over 1100 fatalities, many thousands of injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, mosques, hospitals, pharmacies, granaries, farmer’s fields and many critical public facilities. The clearly marked UN headquarters and UN school were smashed, along with stored medicines and food supplies.

Why? The Congressional response: “Hamas terrorists” everywhere. Sure, defending their Palestinian families is called terrorism. The truth is there is no Hamas army, airforce and navy up against the fourth most powerful military in the world. As one Israeli gunner on an armored personnel carrier frankly said to The New York Times: “They are villagers with guns. They don’t even aim when they shoot.”

Injured Gazans are dying in damaged hospital corridors, bleeding to death because rescuers are not permitted to reach them or are endangered themselves. Thousands of units of blood donated by Jordanians are stopped by the Israeli blockade. Israel has kept the international press out of the Gazan killing fields.
What is going on in Gaza is what Bill Moyers called it earlier this month – “state terrorism.” Already about 400 children are known to have died. More will be added who are under the rubble.

Since 2002, more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations have had a standing offer, repeated often, that if Israel obeys several UN resolutions and withdraws to the 1967 borders leaving 22 percent of the original Palestine for an independent Palestinian state, they will open full diplomatic relations and there will be peace. Israel has declined to accept this offer.

None of these and many other aspects of this conflict matter to the Congress. Its members do not want to hear even from the Israeli peace movement, composed of retired generals, security chiefs, mayors, former government ministers, and members of the Knesset. In 60 years these savvy peace advocates have not been able to give one hour of testimony before a Congressional Committee.

Maybe members of Congress may wish to weigh the words of the founder of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, years ago when he said:

“There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis Hitler Auschwitz but was that their [the Palestinian’s] fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country.”

Doesn’t that observation invite some compassion for the Palestinian people and their right to be free of Israeli occupation, land and water grabs and blockades in the 22 percent left of Palestine?

END.

See truthful and honest Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich about Palestinians rights and Israeli's atrocities in Gaza..

Moses — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:14:41 EST

Congressman Dr. Ron Paul on Israeli attack on Gaza

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxDnnyTnn78

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08gTWqWrI4M&NR=1

Congressman Dennis Kucinich on Israel was breaking the American Law of weapon export control act.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mLH9uSQ-r8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93fPzzgrlc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWOT0q1ojyo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfu3GJ342cI&feature=channel

British Parliament Member, Gerald Kaufmann against the Israel’s aggression on Gaza and the ignoring of the UN resolution to cease the fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMGuYjt6CP8

George Galloway, in the British Parliament The role the British Gov. played in wiping out Palestine from the map of the earth and standing silent in front of the attack on Gaza.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIpvrOJQ0J0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sfh96swYJuI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPDzxS2YX8E&feature=related

The Facts About Hamas and the War on Gaza

Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:40:12 EST

Seeing Through the Lies

By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN

The record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.

Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. And the main reasons for the invasion, I think, are twofold. Number one; to enhance what Israel calls its deterrence capacity, which in layman’s language basically means Israel’s capacity to terrorize the region into submission. After their defeat in July 2006 in Lebanon, they felt it important to transmit the message that Israel is still a fighting force, still capable of terrorizing those who dare defy its word.

And the second main reason for the attack is because Hamas was signaling that it wanted a diplomatic settlement of the conflict along the June 1967 border. That is to say, Hamas was signaling they had joined the international consensus, they had joined most of the international community, overwhelmingly the international community, in seeking a diplomatic settlement. And at that point, Israel was faced with what Israelis call a Palestinian peace offensive. And in order to defeat the peace offensive, they sought to dismantle Hamas.

As was documented in the April 2008 issue of Vanity Fair by the writer David Rose, basing himself on internal US documents, it was the United States in cahoots with the Palestinian Authority and Israel which were attempting a putsch on Hamas, and Hamas preempted the putsch. That, too, is no longer debatable or no longer a controversial claim.

The issue is can it rule in Gaza if Israel maintains a blockade and prevents economic activity among the Palestinians. The blockade, incidentally, was implemented before Hamas came to power. The blockade doesn’t even have anything to do with Hamas. The blockade came to—there were Americans who were sent over, in particular James Wolfensohn, to try to break the blockade after Israel redeployed its troops in Gaza.

The problem all along has been that Israel doesn’t want Gaza to develop, and Israel doesn’t want to resolve diplomatically the conflict, both the leadership in Damascus and the leadership in the Gaza have repeatedly made statements they’re willing to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border. The record is fairly clear. In fact, it’s unambiguously clear.

Every year, the United Nations General Assembly votes on a resolution entitled “Peaceful Settlement of the Palestine Question.” And every year the vote is the same: it’s the whole world on one side; Israel, the United States and some South Sea atolls and Australia on the other side. The vote this past year was 164-to-7. Every year since 1989—in 1989, the vote was 151-to-3, the whole world on one side, the United States, Israel and the island state of Dominica on the other side.

We have the Arab League, all twenty-two members of the Arab League, favoring a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We have the Palestinian Authority favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. We now have Hamas favoring that two-state settlement on the June 1967 border. The one and only obstacle is Israel, backed by the United States. That’s the problem.

Well, the record shows that Hamas wanted to continue the ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade. Long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks on Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the blockade. The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, described what was going on in Gaza as a destruction of a civilization. This was during the ceasefire period.

What does the record show? The record shows for the past twenty or more years, the entire international community has sought to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border with a just resolution of the refugee question. Are all 164 nations of the United Nations the rejectionists? And are the only people in favor of peace the United States, Israel, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Australia? Who are the rejectionists? Who’s opposing a peace?

The record shows that in every crucial issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then in Taba, at every single point, all the concessions came from the Palestinians. Israel didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the Palestinians. The Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle the conflict in accordance with international law.

The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem, according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all the settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law.

Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were willing to make concessions. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions.

I think it’s fairly clear what needs to happen. Number one, the United States and Israel have to join the rest of the international community, have to abide by international law. I don’t think international law should be trivialized. I think it’s a serious issue. If Israel is in defiance of international law, it should be called into account, just like any other state in the world.

Mr. Obama has to level with the American people. He has to be honest about what is the main obstacle to resolving the conflict. It’s not Palestinian rejectionism. It’s the refusal of Israel, backed by the United States government, to abide by international law, to abide by the opinion of the international community.

And the main challenge for all of us as Americans is to see through the lies.

Norman Finkelstein is author of five books, including Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Beyond Chutzpah and The Holocaust Industry, which have been translated into more than 40 foreign editions. He is the son of Holocaust survivors. This article is an edited extract of the views of Finkelstein given at DemocracyNow.org. His website is www.NormanFinkelstein.com

UNICEF: Report On Children's Deaths in Gaza

Hope4Unity — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:42:06 EST

AL JAZEERA.NET, January 15, 2009/excerpt:

Children 'paying price of Gaza war'

Children are bearing the brunt of Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, the United Nations Children's Fund (Unicef) has said.

More than 300 children have been killed and hundreds more wounded in Israel's aerial and ground assault, Ann Veneman, Unicef's executive director, said in a statement released on Wedneday.

She said: "Each day more children are being hurt, their small bodies wounded, their young lives shattered. This is tragic. This is unacceptable.

"They are bearing the brunt of a conflict which is not theirs.

"As fighting reaches the heart of heavily populated urban areas, the impact of lethal weapons will carry an even heavier toll on children."

Anyone with an internet connection can Google "Gaza humanitarian catastrophe" and find the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territories and read the thousands of pages of evidence documenting the reality of the current fighting, and the long term siege on Gaza that preceded it.

Viewer Alert: Video is Graphic & Heartbreaking

Video: Children suffer
Video: Born into war
Naming the deceased

Read the full story from the source

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/01/20091157268591938.html

OPINION: WAR ON GAZA Who will save Israel from itself?

By Mark LeVine, January 13, 2009/excerpt:

"One by one the justifications given by Israel for its latest war in Gaza are unravelling."

"The claim that Hamas will never accept the existence of Israel has proved equally misinformed, as Hamas leaders explicitly announce their intention to do just that in the pages of the Los Angeles Times or to any international leader or journalist who will meet with them."

"Anyone with an internet connection can Google "Gaza humanitarian catastrophe" and find the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the Occupied Territories and read the thousands of pages of evidence documenting the reality of the current fighting, and the long term siege on Gaza that preceded it."

Read the full story from the source:

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/2009110112723260741.html

How Israel's Propaganda Machine Works

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:02:36 EST

Washington Watch

January 12, 2009
Dr. James J. Zogby (c)
President
Arab American Institute

As in past Mideast conflicts, both the media story line and political commentary here in the U.S. has closely followed Israel's talking points on the war. This has been an essential component in Israel's early success and in its ability to prolong fighting without U.S. pushback. Because it recognizes the importance of the propaganda war, Israel fights on this front as vigorously and disproportionately as it engages on the battlefield.

Here's how they have done it:

1) Define the terms of debate, and you win the debate. Early on, the Israelis work to define the context, the starting point, and the story line that will shape understanding of the war. In this instance, for example, they succeeded by constant repetition, in establishing the notion that the starting point of the conflict was December 19th, the end of the six-month ceasefire (which Israel described as "unilaterally ended by Hamas"). In doing so, they ignored, of course, their own early November violations, and their failure to honor their commitment in the ceasefire to open Gaza's borders. They also ignored their having reduced Gaza into a dependency, a process which began long before and continued after their withdrawal in 2005. Because they know that most Americans do not closely follow the conflict and are inclined to believe, as the line goes, "what they hear over and over again," this tactic of preemptive definition and repetition succeeds.

2) Recognize that stereotypes work. Because, for generations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been defined with positive cultural images of Israel and negative stereotypes of Palestinians, Israel's propagandists have an advantage here that is easy to exploit. Because the story has long been seen as "Israeli humanity confronting the Palestinian problem," media coverage of any conflict begins with how "the problem" is affecting the Israeli people. As Golda Meir once put it, "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children, but we can never forgive them for making us kill their children." And so, it was not surprising that, despite the disproportionate suffering of the Palestinians, media coverage attempted to "balance" the story, giving an extensive treatment, with photos of anguished and fearful Israelis and the impact the war was having on them. Early on, when media treatment mattered most, Palestinians were reduced, as always, to mere numbers or objectified as "collateral damage."

3) Anticipate and count on your opponent's blunders. Hamas' stupidity played into Israel's strategy. From the outset, Israel could count on the fact that Hamas would launch rockets and issue the kind of threats that Israel could then parley into sympathy in the West. Knowing that these would most certainly come, and could be exploited, was an advantage in their propaganda war.

4) Be everywhere, and say the same thing -- and make sure your opponents remain as invisible as possible. Israel begins each war with a host of English-speaking spokespersons (many born in the West) available at any time for every media outlet (it's no accident, for example, that Israel has an "Arab" Consul General in Atlanta - that's where CNN is). The work of their propaganda operation, which spreads multiple spokespersons in venues across the United States with consistent talking points, guarantees success. At the same time, they are able to deny media access to Gaza, only allowing the Western reporters to operate near the war zone under IDF supervision, guaranteeing Israel the opportunity to shape every aspect of the story while removing the possibility of independent verification of the horror unfolding in Gaza.

5) Give no ground. Since half of the story will be determined by what political leaders say and do, the political apparatus in Washington is also pressed into service, ensuring that White House and Congressional leadership will "toe the line." Statements issued by Congress, therefore, reflect the talking points and, together, the Israeli spokespersons, the political commentators, and the Congressional statements serve as echoes of one another

6) Deny, deny, deny. When events and reality break through, contradicting the Israeli-established narrative, creating stories that run counter to the imposed story line, the propaganda machine works overtime to deny, deny, deny (saying quite boldly, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"), and/or concoct a counter-narrative that shifts the blame ("We didn't do it, they made us"). In this instance, that means asserting that the death of Palestinian civilians is always the fault of someone else, or that reporters or their opponents are staging the photos of grief (as if to say, "Arabs don't really grieve like we do").

7) The last refuge.... When all else fails, point to a few examples of outrageous anti-Semitism, generalize them, suggesting that that is what motivates critics. It stings, and may be over-used, but it can silence or put critics on the defensive.

Washington Watch is a weekly column written by AAI President James Zogby. The views expressed within this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Arab American Institute. We invite you to share your views on the topics addressed within Dr. Zogby's weekly Washington Watch by emailing jzogby@aaiusa.org.

Be The First To Know...8 Days Until Inauguration

EsquireUK — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 00:41:19 EST

Monday, 12th January 2009

Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama addressed some of the most delicate foreign policy issues over the weekend, confirming that he intended to pursue a clear policy of engagement with Iran and to press immediately for peace in the Middle East.

www.change.gov

Speaking on the ABC News program “This Week,” Mr. Obama reiterated that he wanted to work directly with Iran — a country whose president has called for Israel’s destruction — to improve relations and halt a nuclear program that Tehran describes as peaceful, but that the West believes is not.

“We are going to have to take a new approach,” he told the program’s host, George Stephanopoulos. “My belief is that engagement is the place to start.”

Mr. Obama said he wanted to adopt “a new emphasis on respect and a new willingness on being willing to talk” to the Iranians, while making it clear “that we also have certain expectations.”

The remarks suggested a clear departure from the often pointed and deprecatory speech that has prevailed between Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and President Bush.

Last year, President Bush deflected a secret request by Israel for specialized bombs it wanted for an attack on Iran’s main nuclear complex, The New York Times reported on Sunday. Quoting senior American and foreign officials, the article said that the president told the Israelis that he had authorized new covert action intended to sabotage Iran’s suspected effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Speaking about the Israeli attacks in Gaza, Mr. Obama said he remained convinced that Israel had a clear right of self-defense. More broadly, he promised that after his inauguration on Jan. 20, his foreign policy team would become “immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process.”

Jeff Zeleny, David M. Herszenhorn and Peter Baker contributed reporting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/12/us/politics/12iran.html?_r=1&ref=politics

www.change.gov

See Israeli war crimes in Gaza that was not shown to us by biased lobbyists' controlled media.

Moses — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:48:39 EST

Israeli war crimes in Gaza

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsm_czPF7C0&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynWjYHP91gA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kiyyp9cZdY0

Ron Paul on the conflict

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ghj8l_3ew7U&NR=1

Alison Weir: American Fact Finder Journalist Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOvlYQvRYFE&feature=related

Alison Weir Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzQAp9daJGc&feature=related

Alison Weir Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjJ9CfxYrE&feature=related

Peace in Palestine and Kashmir

Yahya Malik — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:47:42 EST

President-Elect Obama is inheriting so many problems that no other President had. He is among the most intelligent and highly educated President we ever had so I think he must have thought about the same what I am going to write here in brief for your feedback. The difference is, it is based on my observation and experience gained from working and living in Middle East, Africa, Asia and of course US.

Major Hot Points in the World:

There are two major areas that could blow up the big part of the world if President-elect Obama, like his predecessors, does not take a positive and unbiased action; Palestine and Kashmir. Before him, every one also wanted Peace but no one was bold enough to spell out the root cause of the issues and try to bring the warring nations to the table. It is time that we put our foot down and call a Spade a Spade.

The issues are highly complex. No one is willing to compromise. There are many things common among the parties Pakistan/India & Palestine/Israel. Will the history hold America responsible for what is going on in that part of the world? Will the history call us a silent observer or silent party to the problems in those countries? To mention few common areas;

· We as Americans always used UN/Security council to take any action. On the other hand, our biggest allies, India and Israel both occupy land of Kashmir and Palestine and refuse to implement the UN resolutions but we never raised our voice about their inaction.

· We pay each year almost four billions of dollars to Israel from our own Tax money, but we never question, where they are spending, on weapons or infrastructure.

· We gave nuclear technology to Israel and India to build their nuclear reactors and we never ask any question about their piles of nuclear weapons.

President-elect Obama needs to take the Lead and BRING LOVE, PEACE AND JUSTICE to that part of the world. If he succeeds, there will be peace in the world and history will remember him with the best words.

What Needs To Be Done?

Without going into details here is what I think he needs to do as the next President of United States.

1- Tell all the four warring countries, India & Pakistan, and Israel & Palestine to sit at the table to discuss their issues and come up with their solution, within a given time period. We should be represented in those meetings.

2- If they do not reach a decision,

a. US will recall its diplomatic staff

b. US will stop sending financial aid

c. US will get a Resolution passed by the UN to impose strict air, land and sea blockade, as we did against Iraq, Libya and Iran.

d. US will not allow any funds transfer to the country by a business or an individual

e. US will use armed forces of Muslim countries, if necessary, to bring peace and order in those countries.

3- Do not pay any Financial aid to any country in cash. Approve the amount for their specific projects that must be completed by American companies. It will generate more jobs and more business for Americans. The local population of the recipient country will see the result of the aid and will appreciate it. Our money will not go into the pockets of their politicians. Otherwise, we will continue losing money.

New U.S. Policy Needed Toward Israelis and Palestinians

Hope4Unity — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 03:00:34 EST

Published on Tuesday, December 30, 2008 by The San Francisco Chronicle

New US Policy Needed Toward Israelis and Palestinians

by Jess Ghannam

Excerpt:

"President-elect Barack Obama has an opportunity to introduce desperately needed change in America's Middle East policy. Nothing would accomplish more than for Obama to speak out clearly against Israel's terrorism in Gaza. He should clarify that while all governments have the right to self defense, this cannot include the wanton bombardment of heavily populated civilian areas."
"For too long, American support of Israel has come without condition. Billions of our tax dollars have supported a state that betrays American values and engages in policies that harm America's image and interests abroad. Millions of Arabs and Muslims are glued to television sets right now. They are watching scenes of Palestinian men, women and children bathed in blood, aware that American-supplied F-16 fighter jets delivered the bombs. Imagine the difference if, instead, they saw an American leader declare that Palestinians - like Israelis - have the right to live in freedom and security. Imagine if those American planes were delivering much-needed food and medicine to people in Gaza."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/30

Letter from Ralph Nader to G.W. Bush to Stop the barbaric inhuman attack that aims at Ethnic cleansing of the original Palestine land owners in Gaza.

Moses — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:49:37 EST

From: Ralph Nader <info@nader.org>
To: alerts@lists.nader.org
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 7:03:59 PM
Subject: December 31, 2008

Dear George W. Bush---

Cong. Barney Frank said recently that Barack Obama’s declaration that “there is only one president at a time” over-estimated the number. He was referring to the economic crisis. But where are you on the Gaza crisis where the civilian population of Gaza, its civil servants and public facilities are being massacred and destroyed respectively by U.S built F-16s and U.S. built helicopter gunships.

The deliberate suspension of your power to stop this terrorizing of 1.5 million people, mostly refugees, blockaded for months by air, sea and land in their tiny slice of land, is in cowardly contrast to the position taken by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956. That year he single handedly stopped the British, French and Israeli aircraft attack against Egypt during the Suez Canal dispute.

Fatalities in Gaza are already over 400 and injuries close to 2000 so far as is known. Total Palestinian civilian casualties are 400 times greater then the casualties incurred by Israelis. But why should anyone be surprised at your blanket support for Israel’s attack given what you have done to a far greater number of civilians in Iraq and now in Afghanistan?

Confirmed visual reports show that Israeli warplanes and warships have destroyed or severely damaged police stations, homes, hospitals, pharmacies, mosques, fishing boats, and a range of public facilities providing electricity and other necessities.

Why should this trouble you at all? It violates international law, including the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter. You too have repeatedly violated international law and committed serious constitutional transgressions.

Then there is the matter of the Israeli government blocking imports of critical medicines, equipment such as dialysis machines, fuel, food, water, spare parts and electricity at varying intensities for almost two years. The depleted UN aid mission there has called this illegal blockade a humanitarian crisis especially devastating to children, the aged and the infirm. Chronic malnutrition among children is rising rapidly. UN rations support eighty percent of this impoverished population.

How do these incontrovertible facts affect you? Do you have any empathy or what you have called Christian charity?

What would a vastly shrunken Texas turned in an encircled Gulag do up against the 4th most powerful military in the world? Would these embattled Texans be spending their time chopping wood?

Gideon Levy, the veteran Israeli columnist for Ha’aretz, called the Israeli attack a “brutal and violent operation” far beyond what was needed for protecting the people in its south. He added: “The diplomatic efforts were just in the beginning, and I believe we could have got to a new truce without this bloodshed…..to send dozens of jets to bomb a total helpless civilian society with hundreds of bombs—just today, they were burying five sisters. I mean, this is unheard of. This cannot go on like this. And this has nothing to do with self-defense or with retaliation even. It went out of proportion, exactly like two-and-a-half years ago in Lebanon.”

Apparently, thousands of Israelis, including some army reservists, who have demonstrated against this destruction of Gaza agree with Mr. Levy. However, their courageous stands have not reached the mass media in the U.S. whose own reporters cannot even get into Gaza due to Israeli prohibitions on the international press.

Your spokespeople are making much ado about the breaking of the six month truce. Who is the occupier? Who is the most powerful military force? Who controls and blocks the necessities of life? Who has sent raiding missions across the border most often? Who has sent artillery shells and missiles at close range into populated areas? Who has refused the repeated comprehensive peace offerings of the Arab countries issued in 2002 if Israel would agree to return to the 1967 borders and agree to the creation of a small independent Palestinian state possessing just twenty two percent of the original Palestine?

The “wildly inaccurate rockets”, as reporters describe them, coming from Hamas and other groups cannot compare with the modern precision armaments and human damage generated from the Israeli side.

There are no rockets coming from the West Bank into Israel. Yet the Israeli government is still sending raiders into that essentially occupied territory, still further entrenching its colonial outposts, still taking water and land and increasing the checkpoints This is going on despite a most amenable West Bank leader, Mahmoud Abbas, whom you have met with at the White House and praised repeatedly. Is it all vague words and no real initiatives with you and your emissary Condoleezza Rice?

Peace was possible, but you provided no leadership, preferring instead to comply with all wishes and demands by the Israeli government—even resupplying it with the still active cluster bombs in south Lebanon during the invasion of that country in 2006.

The arguments about who started the latest hostilities go on and on with Israel always blaming the Palestinians to justify all kinds of violence and harsh treatment against innocent civilians.

From the Palestinian standpoint, you would do well to remember the origins of this conflict which was the dispossession of their lands. To afford you some empathy, recall the oft-quoted comment by the founder of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, who told the Zionist leader, Nahum Goldmann:

“There has been anti-Semitism the Nazis Hitler Auschwitz but was that their [the Palestinians] fault? They only see one thing: We have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”
Alfred North Whitehead once said: “Duty arises out of the power to alter the course of events.” By that standard, you have shirked mightily your duty over the past eight years to bring peace to both Palestinians and Israelis and more security to a good part of the world.

The least you can do in your remaining days at the White House is adopt a modest profile in courage, and vigorously demand and secure a ceasefire and a solidly based truce. Then your successor, President-elect Obama can inherit something more than the usual self-censoring Washington puppet show that eschews a proper focus on the national interests of the United States.

END.

Reply:

Dear Mr. Nader,

Thank you for your just and conscious stand against the barbaric Zionists attack on Gaza. The best thing to tell George W. Bush is to choose one of the 9 salutes shown in the link below by which he was saluted in Baghdad. Keep himself busy with until January 20th.
Happy New Year to all.

http://www.egypty.com/play_bush_shoes.asp

Searching For Peace In The Middle East

Hope4Unity — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 03:23:15 EST

A Film by Landrum Bolling

"This 30 minute film, sponsored by the Foundation for Middle East Peace, is a vivid, compassionate portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Through the voices of Israeli and Palestinian citizens of diverse backgrounds, it reveals their hopes and fears and explores the issues that divide them. It also describes in a compelling way a broad common ground of yearning for peace, pointing the way toward a resolution of this tragic conflict that would meet the deepest needs of both societies."

Source & Link to the Film:

http://www.fmep.org/searching_for_peace_in_the_middle_east.html

PLEASE sign the petiTon against this latest middle east violence

darlene matthews — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 15:20:37 EST

http://action.jstreet.org/t/3251/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=508&tag=gaza-fwd

Dear J Street Member,

Thanks for teaming up with J Street to support an immediate end to the violence and a strong U.S.-led diplomatic effort to reinstate a meaningful ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.

Now, can you take 30 seconds to tell 3 friends about our action right now? You can use the message below as a template.

- Isaac

Isaac Luria
Online Director
J Street

-----------------------------------------------

When I heard the news about Gaza I got sick to stomach. More than 275 Palestinians dead. More than 100 rockets fired at Israeli civilians.

I joined J Street, a new Jewish-led progressive Israel lobby in calling for an immediate resumption of the ceasefire that stops the rockets aimed at Israel and lifts the blockade of Gaza. I hope you’ll join me:

http://action.jstreet.org/t/3251/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=508&tag=gaza-fwd

They’re trying to demonstrate the depth and power of a sane majority that recognizes that both sides are right and wrong – either Hamas’ rockets or Israel’s disproportionate response – so that American politicians don’t only get pressure from the extremes.

This is so urgent – who knows how many more will die on either side before this round of violence is over – so I hope you’ll take action and forward this message to everyone you know.

Thanks.

The Alliance For Middle East Peace

Hope4Unity — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 01:08:57 EST

"The Alliance for Middle East Peace (ALLMEP) is a coalition of 57 non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that promote people-to-people coexistence and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. As an alliance, the NGOs work together to raise awareness about the extent and importance of their work, as well as cultivate new and expanded resources to support Middle East coexistence."

http://www.allmep.org/allmep_v1/aboutALLMEP.php

How to build a just peace in the Middle East?

Hope4Unity — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 00:11:25 EST

December 15, 2008, Dr. Kamran Mofid

Building up a flourishing Palestinian economy is a crucial element in securing lasting peace in the Middle East, Gordon Brown has said.

Today (15th December 2008) the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, hosted a Palestine Trade and Investment Forum in London. At a joint Downing Street news conference with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Mr Brown reiterated Britain's commitment to a "comprehensive and just peace" in the Middle East. "Establishing a viable Palestinian state with a stable economy and flourishing private sector is a crucial part of this process," Mr Brown said. Mr Brown also expressed his hope that the election of Barack Obama as the next US president would provide a new opportunity for the international community to come together on the Middle East peace process.

I would very much like to draw your attention to an article which I wrote on this very subject and which was posted on our web site on Friday December 8th 2006, more or less two years ago today, give or take one week. I very much wish to quote a passage from this two year old piece. Just imagine if it was put into practice.

"How Can a Lasting Peace Process Move Forward?
Sound economic policies, effectively implemented, are essential elements of the peace process in the Middle East. “Economics of Hope”, leading to envisioning, enabling and empowering the disposed and marginalised people of Palestine is the most effective path to a non-violent resolution of conflict in the Middle East and a long-term security for Israel. Without economic empowerment, leading to tangible economic wellbeing and prosperity, all forms of peace proposals and dialogue, although valuable, will remain ineffective in realising their overall objective: peace, security and harmonious living, side-by-side.

The Path to Peace, Reconstruction, Security and Prosperity: Challenges and Opportunities

It is increasingly apparent that the problem of economics is not just a technical problem for experts but is above all a moral and spiritual issue. The world is longing for a system that would be both participatory and socially just; a system with a functioning economy that would be at the same time sensitive to theological consequences. We must deal with the issue of economic empowerment that has a religious tract. Through our indifference and complicity, the integrity of our faith is in jeopardy.

People everywhere, given a chance prefer to be compassionate, spiritual and caring. They want to be able to practice their religions freely. More and more, they also want to see that their religious values have a bearing on their economic systems and structures. This philosophy is nowhere stronger than in the Middle-East, whose people by and large are very spiritual, religious, hospitable, informed and cultural. They largely do not reject the pivotal values behind the market economy. Indeed, the Middle-East region throughout the history has been the major area of, and for, business, trade and commerce. They do know that, under the right conditions, a market economy can drive development, decrease poverty, encourage productivity, and reward entrepreneurial energy.

The children of Abraham in the Middle East know well that religion is a major factor in the formation of social networks and trust. In addition, the impetus for focusing specifically on spiritual/theological economics draws on the growing recognition in economics and other social sciences that religion is not epiphenomenal, nor is it fading from public significance in the 21st century and the importance to social/economic dynamics of human economic intangibles. Recent developments in the social sciences suggest a growing openness to nonmaterial factors, such as the radius of trust, behavioural norms, and religion as having profound economic, political,and social consequences"...Read the article:

http://www.globalisationforthecommongood.info/2006/12/08/israel-and-palestine-can-there-be-peace-there-can-be-no-peace-without-economic-justice-in-palestine/

.........................................
Kamran Mofid PhD (ECON)
Founder, Globalisation for the Common Good Initiative
www.globalisationforthecommongood.info
Co-editor, Journal of Globalisation for the Common Good
www.commongoodjournal.com
Globalisation for the Common Good, Chicago 2009
http://www.gcgchicago2009.info/

A MUST-READ!

FitNYC — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 10:47:04 EST

http://www.alternativetentacles.com/page.php?page=jello_openletter&x=1

September 11 families denounce Guantanamo trials

darlene matthews — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 11:12:44 EST

September 11 families denounce Guantanamo trials

Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:03pm EST
http://digg.com/world_news/September_11_families_denounce_Guantanamo_trials/share#

By Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - Two dozen people who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks issued a statement on Wednesday denouncing the Guantanamo war crimes trials as illegitimate, shameful and politically motivated.

Their criticism came in response to passionate praise for the Guantanamo tribunals from other victims' relatives, whom the Pentagon brought to the remote U.S. naval base in Cuba this week to observe pretrial hearings for five prisoners charged with plotting the September 11 attacks.

"These prosecutions have been politically motivated from the start, are designed to ensure quick convictions at the expense of due process and transparency, and are structured to prevent the revelation of abusive interrogations and torture engaged in by the U.S. government," said the 24 relatives who signed Wednesday's statement, which was distributed through the American Civil Liberties Union.

They said any verdict in the Guantanamo proceedings, which are formally known as military commissions, would leave them wondering if justice had been served.

"No comfort or closure can come from military commissions that ignore the rule of law and stain America's reputation at home and abroad," they said. "It is time for our nation to stop betraying its own values and the values of so many who died on 9/11."

No one group could possibly speak for all the relatives of the 2,973 people killed when al Qaeda militants crashed hijacked airliners into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001.

Relatives of five victims were chosen by the U.S. Department of Defense to attend Monday's hearing, in which self-confessed September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four co-defendants offered to confess and plead guilty.

The pleas were delayed indefinitely by questions about the tribunal rules and the defendants' sanity.

In a news conference after the hearing, those relatives were emotional and unanimous in their view that the Guantanamo tribunals were fair and should continue.

They said they were proud of the rights the defendants were afforded and marveled that they were offered prayer breaks and respectful treatment even as they seemed to boast of their guilt.

That group was chosen by random lottery from among more than 100 September 11 families who applied to attend, said a Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. J.D. Gordon. The scarcity of flights and housing at the remote Guantanamo base made it necessary to limit the size of the group, he said.

Tom Durkin, one of defendant Ramzi Binalshibh's civilian lawyers, accused the Pentagon of trying to use those families' grief to blackmail President-elect Barack Obama into continuing the Guantanamo tribunals.

Obama has said he would shut the Guantanamo detention camps and move the terrorism trials into the regular U.S. civilian and military courts.

Hamilton Peterson, whose father and stepmother, Donald and Jean Peterson, died on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, predicted Obama would change his mind as he learns more in security briefings about those held at Guantanamo.

"I think he will come to the realization that this is a very appropriate, fair venue," Peterson said in the Pentagon news conference.

But even among that group there was disagreement about what should happen to the September 11 defendants if they are convicted. Some said they favored executing them, and some of the defendants themselves have said they welcomed martyrdom.
But Alice Hoagland, whose son Mark Bingham also died on the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, said they did not deserve to be treated as martyrs.
"There are things worse than death and one of those things is to spend your life totally under the control of people you profess to hate ... we should be sure that these dreadful people sit out their lives in a United States prison so that we can demonstrate that we are a compassionate people and a nation of laws and we have higher respect for life than they have, even their miserable lives."
(Editing by David Wiessler)

Change We Can Believe In?

Hope4Unity — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:12:07 EST

"This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House"

By Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet. Posted November 20, 2008.

A who's who guide to the people poised to shape Obama's foreign policy.

from the conclusion of the article by Jeremy Scahill:

Barack Obama campaigned on a pledge to bring change to Washington. "I don't want to just end the war," he said early this year. "I want to end the mindset that got us into war." That is going to be very difficult if Obama employs a foreign policy team that was central to creating that mindset, before and during the presidency of George W. Bush.

"Twenty-three senators and 133 House members who voted against the war -- and countless other notable individuals who spoke out against it and the dubious claims leading to war -- are apparently not even being considered for these crucial positions," observes Sam Husseini of the Institute for Public Accuracy. This includes dozens of former military and intelligence officials who spoke out forcefully against the war and continue to oppose militaristic policy, as well as credible national security experts who have articulated their visions for a foreign policy based on justice.

Obama does have a chance to change the mindset that got us into war. More significantly, he has a popular mandate to forcefully challenge the militaristic, hawkish tradition of modern U.S. foreign policy. But that work would begin by bringing on board people who would challenge this tradition, not those who have been complicit in creating it and are bound to continue advancing it.

Read the full article: http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/107666/this_is_change_20_hawks%2C_clintonites_and_neocons_to_watch_for_in_obama%27s_white_house/?page=1

I still HOPE for CHANGE and BELIEVE that President-elect Obama will lead us to real change. Although, sometimes lately I worry. I find that surrogates or advisors say or do things that make me cringe. All I know for sure is that it's time for peace and prosperity for all. We must expect and accept nothing less from ourselves or our leaders.

Stevie Wonder, "Love's In Need Of Love Today":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBz9OoeCdlA

Stevie Wonder & Take 6:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXXqv2TgfnY

A Letter to President-Elect Obama from Dr. Kamran Mofid, Founder of Globalisation For The Common Good Initiative (UK)

Hope4Unity — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:15:19 EST

You Have Sown the Seeds: Now is the Time to Prepare for a Rich Harvest

Dear Mr. Obama,

Congratulations on your election as the next president of the United Sates of America. Millions of Americans and indeed many more millions around the world are eagerly looking to you and your administration to address many pressing crises facing your country and the world over. These include climate change and ecology, banking, credit and subprime mortgage lending, soaring cost of energy and food, hunger and infectious disease, international relations and cooperation, peace and justice, terrorism and war, armaments and unprecedented violence, crime and insecurity. Other major problems include the fear of getting sick, old, homeless and jobless.

It is precisely in times like these – unstable and confusing though they may be – that people everywhere need to keep their eyes on the better side of human nature, the side of love and compassion, rather than hatred and injustice; the side of the common good, rather than selfishness, individualism and greed.

With your election a seed of hope has been sown. Now it’s the time to ensure this seed will grow into a most wonderful and rich harvest by insisting that the abundance that comes from God and earth and human effort must be shared, lest its concentration in the hands of the few become a blood-clot endangering our lives- as indeed has happened.

We must remember that the day before your inauguration on Tuesday 20th of January is Martin Luther King’s Birthday. Exactly one year before he died, speaking at Riverside Church in New York, Dr. King called on Americans to cure themselves of the destructive “triplets”, as he called them, of racism, militarism, and materialism in America. The world is united in hoping that a rich harvest of your presidency will be the destruction of the “triplets”.

To do this, your government needs- as I am sure, it will- to adopt a new strategy of generosity toward all the people of America, as well as to all other people and nations around the world, by replacing the strategy of domination that has so long been the policy paradigm. Your administration needs to transform all institutions including the U.S. government to act not merely for economic benefits and the highest return to the shareholders, but also to encourage people’s natural inclination toward love, generosity, compassion, imagination, and wonder at the beauty of the planet Earth and the universe in which we live, by encouraging us all to know and serve the common good.

Those who may not have your best interest at heart may say this is too idealistic. But today, idealism is the new realism. So-called realism, through the strategy of domination, has only led to endless wars, needless suffering, and exploitation, seriously compromising the moral and spiritual standing of the U.S., both at home and abroad.

The world is waiting to see the seed of hope sprouting, growing into a tree of love, embracing all God’s people. To take us to the Promised Land and heal our broken world -- as you have reminded us throughout the campaign period --we need to change, a change we can all believe in, and here I offer Globalisation for the Common Good, to be a path that we should travel along to create a world that is free, just, and prosperous for all.

A Note from James Zogby of the Arab American Institute

Tue, 18 Nov 2008 12:27:44 EST

Washington Watch

November 17, 2008

Lessons That

Should Be Learned

Dr. James J. Zogby (c)

President

Arab American Institute

On November 5th, my office sent an email to tens of thousands of our members and contacts congratulating President-elect Barack Obama. In our message, we noted the historic transformation his victory represented and commended the thousands of Arab Americans who participated in this winning campaign.

The initial and near universal response was heartwarming, with many sharing moving anecdotes of their campaign experiences, their reactions to the victory, and their hopes for change.

One day and one announcement later, the tide turned.

With the naming of Congressman Rahm Emanuel as Obama's White House Chief of Staff, the euphoria of some, not all, turned to despair. The emails and calls to my office were both troubled and troubling because much of the reaction was based on misinformation and because of what the entire episode revealed about the larger political dynamics involved.

First, the facts.

Rahm Emanuel is a brilliant strategist and a practitioner of hard-ball politics who in campaigns, his time in the Clinton White House, and more recently in Congress has demonstrated that he knows how to get a job done. Because there will be critical legislation the President-elect will need to move through Congress, from an economic recovery package and health care reform to a comprehensive approach to alternative energy, Obama has tapped Emanuel for his proven political skills. It is that simple.

This, of course, was neither the content nor the concerns raised by the emails I received. Some charged that Emanuel was an Israeli citizen or a dual U.S.-Israeli national (he is neither, he was born in Chicago in 1959); or, they alleged that he served in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and lost his finger confronting a Syrian tank during the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon (he did not serve in the IDF, and lost his finger in a freak accident while working as a teenager in an Arby's restaurant). A few accused Emanuel of skipping U.S. military service to join the IDF in 1991 (also not true - in the midst of the 1991 Gulf War, while U.S. forces were manning Patriot missile batteries in Israel and the Arab Gulf, Emanuel volunteered for a few weeks, as a civilian, doing maintenance on Israeli vehicles). The most recent story alleges that Rahm Emanuel was fired from the White House in 1998 after being implicated by the FBI, together with Monica Lewinsky, in a Mossad plot to spy on then-President Clinton (a total fabrication, compliments of a shady character who claims to have been a U.S. intelligence official and is a purveyor of many bizarre tales).

That stories such as these have been circulating, and have taken hold, is as reprehensible as the "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim/Manchurian candidate" tale, or the anti-Arab anti-Muslim canards to which I and many of my colleagues have been subjected over the years.

Putting aside the fiction or, more accurately, the slanderous myths, the truth is that Emanuel is an effective leader in Congress. He is a strong supporter of Israel. But then, how many members of Congress are not?

Emanuel is Jewish and his father is an Israeli. Arab Americans should be especially sensitive to attacks on anyone based on religion or ethnicity. He has worked closely with and is liked by the Arab American Members of Congress from both parties, and he was the architect of the 1993 White House lawn signing ceremony for the Oslo Accords that brought Arab Americans and American Jews together. When, in 1994, Rahm accepted my invitation to a luncheon with Arab American community leaders, those who met him were impressed by his openness and honesty.

Beyond these facts, however, there are two concerns that must be addressed.

It is deeply troubling how quickly, for some, the excitement of Barack Obama's victory was eclipsed by cynicism and suspicion, and how receptive some were to wild tales. This could only occur, on one level, because the victory itself was not understood. If it had been, the excitement would have been tempered by an appreciation of political realities.

Obama's victory, no doubt, demonstrated that change is possible - but incremental change. Pressures remain, from the right and the left as well as the interest groups of all sorts that continue to have influence, limiting political options. The economy is in free-fall and, after eight years of Bush neglect and recklessness, dangers abound in the world. An Obama victory doesn't alter those realities. And so our excitement was justified, but our euphoria should never have taken us so high as to lose our grounding and understanding of the limits of what is possible.

My concern is that, for some, the need for change became so great as to make them susceptible to wild swings - from unrealistic expectations to unwarranted despair and, therefore, to become prone to believe the worst.

But the fault here should be shared. I am concerned by the slowness of the Obama camp to respond more quickly or effectively to address the situation. Modern political operations have learned the need to confront false stories, to manage perception, and to anticipate problems -- and, here, the Obama team had been especially masterful.

During the campaign, for example, they repeatedly demonstrated how tuned-in they were to public perception - and in particular to matters that might have created discomfort in the Jewish community. They knew that these stories needed to be shot down quickly. (American Muslims understood much of this, despite feeling slighted, at times.) But in this most recent instance, the Obama camp displayed both inattentiveness and tone-deafness to Arab misperceptions about who Rahm Emanuel is, and what role he will play. (Aside from the flap over the comments made by Rahm's father, for which Rahm, himself, has now profoundly apologized.) As a result, the situation festered.

The campaign is now over, and the President-elect is playing on a world stage with more than one audience at stake. And in the Middle East, especially, sensitivities are as great and (perceived) sleights are felt as acutely as they are among any people in the world. With feelings having been rubbed raw by decades of U.S. policy miscues, with U.S. favorability ratings at all-time lows, and with extremists preying off resentment and fear - perceptions matter.

If we are to succeed in making changes in U.S.-Arab relations - and I believe that an Obama Administration can - greater attentiveness and sensitivity is in order.

Bottom line - there are lessons to learn and work to be done. Arabs and Arab Americans need to ground their expectations in political realities and be wary of slanderous attacks smacking of anti-Semitism, and U.S. political leadership must learn to be as attentive to Arab sensitivities as they are to the concerns of others.

Secretary of State Selection

Hope4Unity — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:02:51 EST

The selection of Bill Richardson as Secretary of State is the best choice among the names that are reportedly under consideration.

Gov. Richardson has communicated a world view that is more closely aligned with the voters who elected Barack Obama for Change We Can Believe in.

The world is watching and waiting for a new approach from The UNITED States -- not more Bush/Cheney era rhetoric toward Iran or a resurrection of the Clinton Administration.

Tracking Legislation. Effecting Change.

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:02:28 EST

Commit yourself to identifying and tracking legislation, practices, and policies that are helping to end the war in Iraq or are furthering it, and commit yourself to writing letters to the editor and to your lawmakers that carefully and tactfully detail why this war must end.

Olmert: Israel must return to 1967 borders

Sheldon from Doylestown — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:20:26 EST

Olmert: Israel must return to 1967 borders

(Haaretz)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036118.html

By Shahar Ilan and Nadav Shragai

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took advantage of yesterday's special Knesset marking the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to call for territorial withdrawals in all disputed areas and to denounce violence on the part of Jewish settlers.

"We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then," he said.

"Many Israelis viciously beat up Palestinians seeking to harvest olives as they have for centuries, and there is no end [to it]. Young Israelis, smitten by messianic dreams, hit our soldiers, breaking their bones and threatening their lives, and no one stops them," Olmert said. "I will not permit this to continue," he promised.

Olmert also said that, "Every government will need to tell the truth, which unfortunately will require us to tear out many parts of the homeland in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights." Addressing the settlers, he said: "You, too, will have do carry out a moral reckoning and reach a decision."

The National Union-National Religious Party Knesset whip Uri Ariel and fellow party MK Aryeh Eldad left the plenum in protest. "We cannot tolerate the fact that a failed prime minister, who is accused of corruption, uses the little free time he has left between police interviews to call for the destruction of the Jewish settlement enterprise in Israel," Eldad said.

Likud whip Gideon Sa'ar accused Olmert of "cynically exploiting a state ceremony for a political speech in the spirit of the extreme left."

Three hours earlier, Foreign Minister and Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni told a meeting of party MKs that "the murder of a prime minister in Israel must not be a subject of political disputes. [Rabin] was the prime minister of us all."

Yesterday was the last day of deliberations in the Knesset plenum before the election hiatus. Party whips postponed the dissolution of the Knesset session by a few days in order to hold the Rabin memorial.

The denunciation of attacks by Jewish settlers on Israel Defense Forces soldiers and pointed criticism of the media for conducting interviews with Rabin's killer, Yigal Amir, dominated yesterday's Knesset deliberations.

"We cannot tolerate the calls being heard today to hurt the prime minister or IDF soldiers. We will take immediate action against lawbreakers and inciters," opposition leader and Likud Chairman MK Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset.

Knesset Speaker MK Dalia Itzik (Labor) said she was astonished by the competition between the television networks over broadcasting the interview with Amir. "The name of the despicable murderer must not be mentioned among us," Itzik said. "This is not an issue of freedom of expression, rather it's an attempt by the murderer to win legitimacy. Let him rot in prison, don't give him a stage, throw him into the garbage pail of history."

In large measure Olmert's Knesset speech yesterday echoed his remarks at the state memorial for Rabin earlier in the day at Jerusalem's Mt. Herzl, where Rabin is buried. He called for giving up Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and returning to the 1967 borders, with slight amendments.

"We have no choice but to give up, with great torment, parts of our homeland of which we dreamed for generations of yearning and prayers," Olmert said. "For a generation an increasingly sharp disagreement has been raging in Israel over what should be here. Since the murder the dispute has only become fiercer.

"Rabin was not thrilled about the decision, he was tormented before Oslo, he hesitated about the agreement and was filled with doubt even after making a decision - not out of illusions or false hopes - but rather he decided to go in a direction that more and more people today are willing to accept," Olmert said.

President Shimon Peres addressed recent settler violence in his remarks at Mt. Herzl. "There is a small minority of reckless, unrestrained people who boldly defy the state's authority, attack Palestinians just for being Palestinian and challenge the law-enforcement mechanisms that, among others, protect them, too.

"We must isolate and expel this violent and dangerous minority," Peres added, "and we mustn't be silent in the face of their incitement. We cannot tolerate the acts of vandalism and violence. It is as though they are a state within a state. It is the responsibility of the state to carry out justice without fear - the honor of Israel and the strength of its democracy and lawfulness depends on it."

Obama and the Future of US Foreign Policy

Chinni — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:36:12 EST

Obama and the Future of US Foreign Policy: A Discussion

Democracy Now! Nov 06 2008

John Pilger: ..Michael Moore had it right when he said the other day, let’s hope that Obama breaks all his election promises, as politicians generally do, because all his election promises, in terms of foreign policy, are a continuation of business as usual. And even if there is a return to what used to be called a multilateral world, I think there has to be critical analysis of the return to the pretensions of America as a peacemaker around the world. We had to endure this, and I mean endure it during the Clinton years, and I don’t think that we, in the rest of the world, ought to have to endure it now through the Obama years, so that we have a continuation, if you like, of liberalism as a divisive, almost war-making ideology, being used to destroy liberalism as a reality, because that has gone on under so-called liberal presidents, from Kennedy to Clinton, Democratic presidents. And President-elect Obama suggests to us, in his promises, that he is going to continue that, bombing Pakistan and Afghanistan..
Mahmood Mamdani: ..Will America recognize, as I believe South Africa has after the election of Mandela, that the election of Mandela was not change, but an opportunity to change? And whether that opportunity is realized and transformed into a program of social justice within the country and peace abroad will depend on the movement that pushes Obama and gives him the opportunity to respond to it..
Ali Abunimah: ..we should be setting the standard very high, not accepting slight hints that in a few years’ time an Obama administration might accept a Palestinian state or might talk about one. The days for that are over. The situation is urgent, and we really need to see radical change. It’s not going to come from Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk; it’s only going to come from a groundswell demanding that the promises of change be kept..
Tariq Ali: ..I mean, the British are already saying that sending in more troops isn’t going to help, because the war is lost. The United States intelligence agencies are already involved in panic discussions with the people they are fighting, the neo-Taliban, to try and persuade them to join the coalition, which they’re refusing to do as long as there are foreign troops there. So, escalating the war I don’t think is a serious option. And if he does it, it will be a very, very serious mistake, on the same level in scale as invading Iraq..
Mahmood Mamdani: ..there’s a remarkable difference between the youth movement of the ’60s, which mainly organized outside the system, and the youth movement which has brought Obama to power, because this movement has organized within the system to reform the system. Obama keeps on saying that this movement must not go away, that change hasn’t come, that this is the beginning of change. Now, will the candidate be able to tame the movement, or will the movement be able to stamp itself to some extent in the coming days?

World says thank you Obama voters

Unknown user — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:00:08 EST

Obama team you did it, congratulations, we can finally start turning the page on the disastrous Bush era.

And the people around the world are happy we can move forward once more. So fellow citizens of the world let's thank all the people who worked and voted for Barack Obama.

THANK YOU AMERICA FOR CHOISING OBAMA

Let's collect a whole lot of thank yous from around the world, upload your thank you picture at http://www.globalthankyou.com/

Peace out

Congratulations, mr. president

Jorge — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:40:34 EST

This is no doubt a historic moment for USA and for the world. This is the thanks for the efforts of millions of Americans who supported Obama, with donations, calls, traveling to support Obama.
This is really a victory for the american people, as said our future president.
The real supporters of Obama always believed that was possible to achieve change.
This is your victory.
McCain praised Obama and called the union of Americans, an good attitude. I hope all Americans follow the example and accept the new democratically elected president, despite all the differences.
The change is coming to the White House, and we must be proud.

In that moment I think USA has gain more respect of all world, even many of his enemies.

An OBAMA Moment Early On Election Day November 4, 2008

Hope4Unity — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:26:14 EST

Early this morning near 18th & Vine in Kansas City, MO a citizen of one of the wealthtiest nations in the world pushed a shopping cart containing all his worldly goods up the same steep hill he climbs each day after freshing up in a water fountain at a nearby park.

The man on the hill who lives his life on the street could detect on election day something special in the air...maybe the righteous wind. Believing in the power of one voice, and community organizing Obama volunteers were canvassing door-to-door even when there was no door, and so the man with the cart received an "Obama '08" sticker.

A moment passed as he studied the sticker. Then, without saying a word this American Patriot moved slowly to the front of his cart and balancing the overflowing cart against his hip, he paused then smiled slightly.

With great care and a look of reverence for what today represents, he carefully placed the OBAMA STICKER front and center on the plastic tarp that protected the contents of the cart.

In the early morning light on Election Day 2008, in a quiet Obama-inspired moment there was shared hope and belief in Barack Obama and in ourselves. A New Day is on the way.

"I am my sisters' keeper. I am my brothers' keeper."

One Voice...

One Love...I am grateful.

Now, let's get back out there and make this happen. The world is watching. We can do this!

I VOTED BARACK OBAMA 2008

Amunaor — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:20:15 EST

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

If you continue beating your head against a brick wall; it's bleeding, and it starts to hurt, don't you think it's time to stop beating your head against the wall? -- Barack Obama

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!
ON BEHALF OF CANADA, THE UK, KENYA, ITALY AND EGYPT, WHO ALL WISHED THEY COULD HAVE VOTED TOO, AND WHO ARE ALL IN MARILYN'S AND MY BLOODSTREAM!!! - Joy

I'm DD Pruett and I approve this message!

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

See you at the polls :)

Christopher W. — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 18:36:19 EST

We have the duty and honor to get up tomorrow and exercise our Constitutional right to vote for the best candidate to lead our country through, not only our Nation’s current and seemingly systemic crises, but also through the better days that are sure to lie ahead if Senator Obama is elected to the Presidency of the United States of America.

God Speed and God Bless everyone who has worked so hard for this moment in history - Christopher W.

The End Game is here - please make phone calls

Christopher W. — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:28:19 EDT

The end of a long fought campaign for the Presidency of the United States of America is here. The most productive act we, as supporters of Senator Obama, can do is reach deep, for we are all tired, and make 10, 15, 25 more calls to our fellow Americans and encourage them to vote for Senator Obama, but regardless of who they support ask them to embrace their right for change in America and vote on November 4th.

Peace & God Bless you all, Chris

respect diversity, vote for Obama

annie — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:18:14 EDT

I'm amazed. I'm amazed that people so easily believe the outrageous negative ideas of politics. I have learned that we are even more diverse than I realised. We are very diverse in mindset, and in how and what we learn and believe about each other, our culture, and our government. We have very different paths. I respect diversity. But it is difficult for me when others do not in turn respect my right to question, to believe as I do, in Obama and his values and vision. He is a living example of respect for diversity.

I recently took an interesting taxi ride. An immigrant of 5 years in Chicago told me that Obama is false in every way, that he will invite terrorism and an uprising of black gangs descended from slaves in America. All people will suffer under Obama leadership. He isn't racist, he said, but would be a mistake to have a African American as president. I disagreed with this immigrant as tactfully and respectfully as I could muster, but the best outcome we could achieve was that it was OK to disagree, and that a strong and honorable leader is important. We both agreed that GW Bush has been a disaster.

On the phone as a volunteer, like many of you I'm sure, I've heard similar stubborn fantastic claims against Obama and for McCain. All I know to do is validate the right to disagree, and offer my view as I understand it from the records, the literature, the net, the news, and etc, that has convinced me that Obama is our best candidate for president.

And VOTE!!

Palin/McCain Anti-Semitism

Jedidiah Palosaari — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:54:50 EDT

Have you heard? Yes- they went even further. A blatant, public display of the anti-Semitism of the Palin/McCain campaign.

Today, they started speaking of Obama's close association with Professor Rashid Khalidi. Now, in this case, unlike with William Ayers, he actually has a relationship- Rashid and Barack are friends. Rashid's not an advisor for Barack, but rather a fellow parent at Obama's school. And Dr. Khalidi is not only a professor of Arab studies, but has the prestigious Edward Said chair at Columbia. (Dr. Said was perhaps the world's foremost historian of Middle Eastern studies.)

Now Palin is accusing Dr. Khalidi of being a spokesman for the PLO, which she calls a terrorist organization. Therefore, according to Palin and McCain, Obama is, they think, again fraternizing with terrorists. So let's go over the facts, shall we?

The PLO is not a terrorist organization. It is an organization fighting to liberate the Palestinian people. It has at times turned to violence, and in the distant past, was terrorist. It has renounced those activities. I know that hard-line Zionists will disagree with this, but this blog post isn't written for them. The PLO now runs thePalestinian government, and Israel deals with them. The PLO was also dealt with directly by Presidents Clinton and Bush I. Governor Palin , do you also accuse President Clinton, President Bush, and Israel of fraternizing with terrorists? (Yes, I know you salivate for the first, but do you honestly go all the way?) And surely the governor knows that the designation of the PLO as a terrorist organization by George II is very controversial, and many, many foreign policy experts consider the designation incorrect? Well, actually, perhaps she's not aware of that.

But, some will say, the PLO was once a terrorist organization, and once terrorist, always terrorist. Have you ever heard of the Irgun Gang? It was an extreme Zionist organization, which used exceptionally violent means to form the State of Israel back in the 40's, including bombings and murder of civilians. The terrorist designation was done by Britain, which at time controlled the Palestinian Mandate. Nearly every Prime Minister and President of Israel was at one time associated with this gang. But perhapsPalin still considers them all terrorists as well? Or perhaps she feels that sometimes governments make mistakes in designating freedom fighting groups as terrorists?

Oh, and lest I forget- Dr. Khalidi has never been a spokesman for the PLO, or the Palestinian government. He does speak of the right for Palestinians to be free, and that attacks by Israel on Palestinian civilians are a violation of international law. He has said that Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories. He has spoken against Zionist groups who seek to silence free speech and debate on these issues. All positions that most of the world accepts- accept for some in Israel and America. All legitimate viewpoints, that reasonable people can disagree on, including Barack Obama.

I understand that Sarah Palin and her running mate might not agree with Dr. Khalidi. But they seem to have taken a page from George II, where, if anyone doesn't agree with them, they are a terrorist. This is nothing short of academic oppression.Palin and McCain don't want anyone speaking out against the practices of Israel. But more than that, they seek to silence them, just like the Zionist groups that Dr.Khalidi speaks against. They not only don't agree, they not only don't want to hear the opposing viewpoints- they seek to label the opposing viewpoints as "terrorist", so that the worstappellation in modern America is applied, and the other no longer has a voice. And since President Carter has also pointed out flaws in the Israeli government, even to the point of calling their system apartheid, because, as Carter says, you tell a friend when they are going wrong, one would have to assume thatPalin would also consider President Carter a terrorist.

Let us be clear. Palin and McCain again seek to go negative and attack Obama. This time they seek to attack Obama by saying he is a friend of someone who has supported Palestinian state and human rights. They seek to call this man a terrorist and falsely claim he spoke for the PLO, and then they seek to claim the PLO is terrorist. They do this because they believe that anyone who speaks against injustice in Israel and Palestine, anyone who speaks for the Palestinians, is wrong, is colluding with terrorists, and should be silenced. It is not just that you must support the rights of Jews and Israelis (certainly something should all support), but forPalin and McCain, the rights of the Palestinians should be limited.

My friends, there is a name for this. It is anti-Palestinian. It is anti-Arab. And since Palestinians are Arab, and Arabs are Semites, it is also Anti-Semitic. Probably not any worse than being racist, but it's good to call a spade a spade.

Vote Palin-McCain. The Anti-Semitic Ticket.

Calling and Doorbelling for Obama

Kathleen — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:40:07 EDT

At the Chelan-Douglas Democrat Headquarters, I have been volunteering by:

1. Calling undecided voters;

2. Doorbelling for Obama;

3. Waving signs for Obama at major crossroads; and

4. Answering both the phone and questions.

Unfortunately, my efforts are not recognized by this website. It's frustrating to log on and read that I have presumably done nothing for the Obama campaign except donate money. Many of us are volunteering locally. I'm excited by the momentum Obama is gaining daily toward winning the national election. This is thrilling for me, as a lifelong Democrat!

Kathleen

New York Times' Endorsement of Barack Obama

Sheldon from Doylestown — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:47:41 EDT

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Editorial

Barack Obama for President

Published: October 23, 2008

Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation's future truly hangs in the balance.
The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush's failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane's floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.
As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.
•
Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems.
In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.
Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain's campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound.
Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans' bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government's role and responsibilities.
In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, "Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology."
Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse.
The Economy
The American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies. Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" — is still a believer.
Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.
Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem.
Mr. Obama is clear that the nation's tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush's tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children's options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.
Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole.
National Security
The American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.
While Iraq's leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still taking about some ill-defined "victory." As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors.
Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan's dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.
Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain's long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.
Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America's image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.
Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world.
Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow's bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians' worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.
Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain's willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening.
The Constitution and the Rule of Law
Under Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law.
Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of "black" programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.
Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush's attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.
Mr. McCain improved protections for detainees. But then he helped the White House push through the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees the right to a hearing in a real court and put Washington in conflict with the Geneva Conventions, greatly increasing the risk to American troops.
The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues. He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women's reproductive rights.
The Candidates
It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.
Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility.
Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.
He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush's misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.
Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America's emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of "drill, baby, drill."
Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies.
•
Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He's been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife's love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans' patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states "pro-America."
This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency.
The nation's problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing "robo-calls" and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.

God's Political "Talking Points" - THIS IS GOOD!

FitNYC — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:18:26 EDT

This is from "Hearts and Minds" by Jim Wallis on Sojourners.com and it is very thoughtful, I think!

   1. With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, I will examine the record, plans, policies, and promises made by the candidates on what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. And any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.

   2. From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is, at least, a biblical presumption against war and the hope of beating our swords into instruments of peace. So I will choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world and make us all safer. I will choose the candidates who seem to best understand that our security depends upon other people’s security (everyone having "their own vine and fig tree, so no one can make them afraid," as the prophets say) more than upon how high we can build walls or a stockpile of weapons. Christians should never expect a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.

   3. "Choosing life" is a constant biblical theme, so I will choose candidates who have the most consistent ethic of life, addressing all the threats to human life and dignity that we face — not just one. Thirty-thousand children dying globally each day of preventable hunger and disease is a life issue. The genocide in Darfur is a life issue. Health care is a life issue. War is a life issue. The death penalty is a life issue. And on abortion, I will choose candidates who have the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarized legal debates and "pro-choice" and "pro-life" mantras from either side.

   4. God’s fragile creation is clearly under assault, and I will choose the candidates who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. In particular, I will choose the candidates who will most clearly take on the growing threat of climate change, and who have the strongest commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. And that choice could accomplish other key moral priorities like the redemption of a dangerous foreign policy built on Middle East oil dependence, and the great prospects of job creation and economic renewal from a new "green" economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.

   5. Every human being is made in the image of God, so I will choose the candidates who are most likely to protect human rights and human dignity. Sexual and economic slavery is on the rise around the world, and an end to human trafficking must become a top priority. As many religious leaders have now said, torture is completely morally unacceptable, under any circumstances, and I will choose the candidates who are most committed to reversing American policy on the treatment of prisoners. And I will choose the candidates who understand that the immigration system is totally broken and needs comprehensive reform, but must be changed in ways that are compassionate, fair, just, and consistent with the biblical command to "welcome the stranger."

   6. Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. As the father of two young boys, I am deeply concerned about the values our leaders model in the midst of the cultural degeneracy assaulting our children. Which candidates will best exemplify and articulate strong family values, using the White House and other offices as bully pulpits to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values? And I will choose the candidates who promise to really deal with the enormous economic and cultural pressures that have made parenting such a "countercultural activity" in America today, rather than those who merely scapegoat gay people for the serious problems of heterosexual family breakdown.

That is my list of personal "faith priorities" for the election year of 2008, but they are not "non-negotiables" for anyone else. It’s time for each of us to make up our own list in these next 12 days. Make your list and send this on to your friends and family members, inviting them to do the same thing.

The Idiots Who Rule America

Chinni — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:46:55 EDT

The Idiots Who Rule America

By Chris Hedges - Oct 20 2008

Our oligarchic class is incompetent at governing, managing the economy, coping with natural disasters, educating our young, handling foreign affairs, providing basic services like health care and safeguarding individual rights. That it is still in power, and will remain in power after this election, is a testament to our inability to separate illusion from reality. We still believe in “the experts.” They still believe in themselves. They are clustered like flies swarming around John McCain and Barack Obama. It is only when these elites are exposed as incompetent parasites and dethroned that we will have any hope of restoring social, economic and political order..
..Our elites—the ones in Congress, the ones on Wall Street and the ones being produced at prestigious universities and business schools—do not have the capacity to fix our financial mess. Indeed, they will make it worse. They have no concept, thanks to the educations they have received, of the common good. They are stunted, timid and uncreative bureaucrats who are trained to carry out systems management. They see only piecemeal solutions which will satisfy the corporate structure. They are about numbers, profits and personal advancement. They are as able to deny gravely ill people medical coverage to increase company profits as they are able to use taxpayer dollars to peddle costly weapons systems to blood-soaked dictatorships. The human consequences never figure into their balance sheets. The democratic system, they think, is a secondary product of the free market. And they slavishly serve the market..
..We may elect representatives to Congress to end the war in Iraq, but the war goes on. We may plead with these representatives to halt Bush’s illegal wiretapping but the telecommunications lobbyists make sure it remains in place. We may beg them not to pass the bailout but 850 billion taxpayer dollars are funneled upward to the elites on Wall Street. We may want single-payer, not-for-profit health care but it is not even discussed as a possibility in presidential debates. We, as individuals in this system, are irrelevant..
..I do not think George W. Bush or Barack Obama or John McCain or Henry Paulson are fascists. Rather, they are part of a cabal of naive, mediocre and self-deluded capitalists who are steadily weakening political and economic structures to a point where our democracy will become so impotent that it can be blown aside, probably with broad popular support. The only question is how this will happen. Will there be a steady and slow decline as in the late Roman Empire when the Senate ended as a farce? Will we see a powerful right-wing backlash from those outside the mainstream political system, as we did in Yugoslavia, and the rise of a militant Christian fascism? Will there be a national crisis that allows those in power to instantly sweep away all constitutional rights in the name of national security?

COLIN POWELL ENDORSEMENT OF OBAMA!

FitNYC — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:39:19 EDT

COLIN L. POWELL, discussing Senator John McCain, and endorsing Senator Barack Obama:

As gifted as he is, he is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda, with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he’d be quite good at it. But I think we need a generational change."

THE NEW YORK TIMES "QUOTE OF THE DAY"

Global Communication Association Conference

Hope4Unity — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 03:15:46 EDT

Oman Conference 2008

Global Communication Association Conference

Globalization and Media in the Middle East
Muscat, Sultanate of OMAN
October 20-21, 2008

Global Communication Association Conference

Globalization and Media in the Middle East
Muscat, Sultanate of OMAN
October 20-21, 2008

Established in 2007 and inaugurated at the Shanghai Global Communication and Development Conference, GCA is intended to:

Foster and promote academic research in global studies;
Promote academic collaboration among major universities around the world;
Facilitate joint projects and research opportunities among scholars, researchers, and graduate students;
Facilitate faculty research and exchange programs;
Facilitate joint programs, grant opportunities, symposiums, and timely initiatives among centers, institutes, and global organizations;
Explore the myriad opportunities and challenges in the areas of teaching, learning, communication development, globalization, mass media, and international cooperation; and
Hold annual conferences throughout the world.

http://blogs.calumet.purdue.edu/gca/

Globalisation for the Common Good works closely with Global Communication Association.

www.globalisationforthecommongood.info

McCain/Palin's racist rhetoric & strategy will fail

Christopher W. — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 19:20:06 EDT

From Today's NYTimes:

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Let us pray for those who still live lives of hate in divisive poverty. - cw

Petraeus Says Talk To Your Enemies!

Bill Ingram — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:48:00 EDT

It's funny how six months ago Bush and his ilk were scoffing at Barack for saying he would sit down and talk to our enemies before making a decision to launch a war. Honestly, the thought had probably not occurred to them. But since then Bush has been doing just that . . .almost like in the back of his mind he thought: "Hey! That's not a bad idea!"

And now General Petraeus is saying the same thing - in contradiction to John McCain's "shoot first, ask questions never" stance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081008/ts_nm/us_afghan_usa_petraeus

Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank

Sheldon from Doylestown — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:11:29 EDT

From The New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/world/middleeast/30olmert.html?hp

Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank

By ETHAN BRONNER

Published: September 29, 2008

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.

He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue.

In an unusually frank and soul-searching interview granted after he resigned to fight corruption charges — he remains interim prime minister until a new government is sworn in — Mr. Olmert discarded longstanding Israeli defense doctrine and called for radical new thinking in words that are sure to stir controversy as his expected successor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, tries to build a coalition.

“What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me,” Mr. Olmert told Yediot Aharonot newspaper in the interview to mark the Jewish new year that runs from Monday night till Wednesday night. “The time has come to say these things.”

He said traditional Israeli defense strategists had learned nothing from past experiences and seemed stuck in the considerations of the 1948 Independence War.

“With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”

He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”

Over the last year, Mr. Olmert has publicly castigated himself for his earlier right-wing views and he did so again in this interview. On Jerusalem, for example, he said, “I am the first who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the entire city. I admit it. I am not trying to justify retroactively what I did for 35 years. For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth.”

He said that maintaining sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem, Israel’s official policy, would involve bringing 270,000 Palestinians inside Israel’s security barrier. It would mean an ongoing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out earlier this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents with a bulldozer and earth mover.

“A decision has to be made,” he said. “This decision is difficult, terrible, a decision that contradicts our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish people for 2,000 years.”

The government’s public stand on Jerusalem until now has been to assert that the status of the city was not under discussion. But Mr. Olmert made clear that the eastern, predominantly Arab, sector had to be yielded “with special solutions” for the holy sites.

On peace with the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert said in the interview: “We face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”

Elsewhere in the interview, when discussing a land swap with the Palestinians, he said the exchange would have to be “more or less one to one.”

Mr. Olmert also addressed the question of Syria, saying that Israel had to be prepared to give up the Golan Heights but that in turn Damascus knew it had to change the nature of its relationship with Iran and its support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia.

On Iran, Mr. Olmert said Israel would act within the international system, adding, “Part of our megalomania and our loss of proportions is the things that are said here about Iran. We are a country that has lost a sense of proportion about itself.”

Reaction from the Israeli right was swift. Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was “endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly.”

He added that those who thought Israel’s problem was a lack of defined borders — as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview — “are ignoramuses who don’t understand anything and they invite war.”

As they reacted to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, Palestinian negotiators said it was satisfying to hear Mr. Olmert’s words but they said the words did not match what he had offered them so far. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, told Palestinian Radio that it would have been better if Mr. Olmert had taken this position while in office rather than while leaving it and that Mr. Olmert had not yet presented a detailed plan for a border between Israel and a Palestinian state.

In theory, Mr. Olmert will continue peace negotiations while awaiting the new government. But most analysts believe that, having been forced to resign his post, he will not be able to close a deal.

pictures of DemsTurkey watching debates

isafakir — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 10:36:28 EDT

http://www.democratsabroad.org/node/6823

the Presidential Debates fotos, uploaded: Democrats Abroad Turkiye on Flickr:

The fotos of DATurkey's Presidential Debates fotos from the meet-up at Sek Sek on Saturday are uploaded: http://flickr.com/groups/demsabroadturkiye/

Democrats Abroad Turkey on Flickr: http://flickr.com/groups/demsabroadturkiye/

McBush 911 Financial Meltdown Threat

Amunaor — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 00:15:22 EDT

Wall-Street Casino Owners Hold Public Wallets (Fundamentals) Hostage

Wall-Street Casino Operators got drunk......Wall-Street should stop their whining and get over their self induced mental recession. Beware of Confidence Men! Remember - Fraud is Fraud; no matter how you slice it or dice it, a pig with lipstick, is still a pig!

In Los Vegas, not unlike Wall-Street, the house is rigged to always come out on top. This is not a solution, only a sturdier yoke...a new and improved mousetrap, if you will!

Please read book review at link: Secrets of the Federal Reserve

The New World Order: Mercenary or Maverick? Neoliberalism by Any Other Name

Hope4Unity — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:59:23 EDT

"Neoliberalism does not bother with ideology. Neoliberalism is a conscious betrayal of the interests of 99% of the people on this planet."

Are there alternatives to plundering the earth, making war and destroying the planet?

This text is based on a panel presentation together with Ferdinand Lacina, former Austrian Minister of Finance and Ewald Nowotny, President of the BAWAG-Bank during the “Dallinger Conference”, AK Wien, November 21, 2005.

Original German Title: “Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, oder: Die Globalisierung des Neoliberalismus und seine Folgen, Wien, Picus 2007.

Claudia von-Werlhof is prominent writer and academic, Professor of Women's Studies and Political Science at the University of Innsbruck, Austria.

(Translation: from the German by Gabriel Kuhn)

Introduction

Is there an alternative to plundering the earth?

Is there an alternative to making war?

Is there an alternative to destroying the planet?

No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape them either. They have to be asked. Ultimate absurdity has taken hold of our lives. We are not only headed towards the world’s annihilation – we are headed towards it with ever increasing speed. The reason is the “globalization” of so-called “neoliberalism”. Its motto is TINA: “There Is No Alternative!” It is the deal of deals, the big feast, the final battle – Armageddon.

Wrong? Exaggerated?
Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their effects are so fatal, why they will fail, and why people nonetheless cling to them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not – be able to live with the consequences they cause.
TINA – Supposedly without Alternative
What Is “Neoliberal Globalization”?
For a good twenty years now we have been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization/the globalization of neoliberalism, and that, in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have been confronted with the TINA-concept: “There Is No Alternative!”
The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand. Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!
Some go as far as suggesting that neoliberalism and its globalization – meaning, a specific economic system that developed within specific socio-historical circumstances – is nothing less but a law of nature. In turn, “human nature” is supposedly reflected by the character of the system’s economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone’s benefit.
While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits of today’s economic liberalism (none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth’s population, yes the earth itself, suffer hardship to an extent that puts their very survival at risk. The damage done seems irreversible.
All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained (Mies/Werlhof 2003, p. 23ff, 36ff). The true reason is, of course, the media’s corporate control. Neoliberalism means corporate politics.

I guess McCain's good luck charms are not working

Christopher W. — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 21:49:34 EDT

From the San Fransisco Chronicle:

McCain, who has been known to carry good-luck talismans - a pair of L.L. Bean shoes, a feather, a flattened penny - has had fortune smile on him now and again. The New York Times handed the senator from Arizona a public relations gift this week by rejecting an article he had submitted to the editorial page to counter one the paper ran from Obama last week, making it easy to bash the liberal media.

Pasted from <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/23/MN2411TVFS.DTL>

So now he is hiding behind the curtains hoping that if people can't see him and his failed policies he will somehow gain our trust? Win our votes? I am alarmed at his position that somehow acting like a Senator is more important than a Presidential Debate. This man still thinks he is qualified to be president? I think not. Now is the time to galvanize our contacts and reach out to all of our fellow American's who are losing sleep every night over, as a colleague of mine stated, her fears of the money in the college fund for her daughter is in deep peril. I think Obama should move ahead with the debate and if McCain fails to show up let all of America see that he is not fit for the Presidency of the United States of America for he answers their concerns with the stony silence of another absentee empty suit.

Foreign Policy Experts Endorse Barack Obama for President

Hope4Unity — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:33:10 EDT

Over 70 Foreign Policy Experts Announce Endorsement of Barack Obama for PresidentChicago, IL | December 19, 2007

Chicago, IL -- Over seventy foreign policy experts, with experience ranging from the State Department and the Pentagon, to the White House and the U.S. Congress, today announced their endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President.

The group, which includes individuals who have served under every President since John F. Kennedy, said that Obama has the judgment to lead America at this pivotal moment in history, and the ability to take on unconventional threats and restore America's security and standing in the world.

"On the most important foreign policy decision of the last twenty years, Barack Obama made the right judgment in opposing the war in Iraq. His combination of sound judgment, global understanding, and bold and detailed policy proposals is exactly what America needs in a President at this critical moment in our history," said Larry Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan Administration.

Their endorsement came as Obama held a Foreign Policy Forum in Des Moines, Iowa, where he and several of his top foreign policy advisors engaged in a n open dialogue with Iowa residents on the challenges America faces and how Obama would address them as President. At the event, Obama discussed his specific plans to end the war in Iraq, renew American diplomacy, pursue aggressive diplomacy with Iran, fight terrorism and extremism, and lead the world against the threats of the 21st century.

Further details on Obama's foreign policy agenda can be found here:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/foreignpolicy/

Verify your registration, Register to Vote, Find Your Polling Location here:

www.VoteForChange.com

The Economy, National Security, Bush/McCain and No-Bid Contracts, Pentagon & Waste

Hope4Unity — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:33:02 EDT

Military Industrial Complex 2.0

President Bush will leave office boasting that the United States has the most powerful military machine in the world - but his true legacy is a Pentagon bloated almost beyond recognition and crippled by its dependence on private military corporations, says Frida Berrigan.

16th September 08 - Frida Berrigan, TomDispatch.com

Seven years into George W. Bush's Global War on Terror, the Pentagon is embroiled in two big wars, a potentially explosive war of words with Tehran, and numerous smaller conflicts – and it is leaning ever more heavily on private military contractors to get by.

Once upon a time, soldiers did more than pick up a gun. They picked up trash. They cut hair and delivered mail. They fixed airplanes and inflated truck tires.

Not anymore. All of those tasks are now the responsibility of private military corporations. In the service of the Pentagon, their employees also man computers, write software code, create integrating systems, train technicians, manufacture and service high-tech weapons, market munitions, and interpret satellite images.

16th September 08 - Frida Berrigan, TomDispatch.com

Once upon a time, soldiers did more than pick up a gun. They picked up trash. They cut hair and delivered mail. They fixed airplanes and inflated truck tires.

People in ties or heels, not berets or fatigues, today translate documents, collect intelligence, interpret for soldiers and interrogators, approve contracts, draft reports to Congress, and provide oversight for other private contractors. They also fill prescriptions, fit prosthetics, and arrange for physical therapy and psychiatric care. Top to bottom, the Pentagon's war machine is no longer just driven by, but staffed by, corporations.

Consider the following: In fiscal year 2005 (the last year for which full data is available), the Pentagon spent more contracting for services with private companies than on supplies and equipment -- including major weapons systems. This figure has been steadily rising over the past 10 years. According to a recent Government Accountability Office report, in the last decade the amount the Pentagon has paid out to private companies for services has increased by 78% in real terms. In fiscal year 2006, those services contracts totaled more than $151 billion.

Ever more frequently, we hear generals and politicians alike bemoan the state of the military. Their conclusion: The wear and tear of the President's Global War on Terror has pushed the military to the breaking point. But private contractors are playing a different tune. Think of it this way: While the military cannot stay properly supplied, its suppliers are racking up contracts in the multi-billions. For them, it's a matter of letting the good times roll.

Killing and Dying for Oil. Meanwhile,

Sheldon from Doylestown — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 22:46:00 EDT

Killing and Dying For Oil

When Refusing to Kill Has a Higher Sentence Than Murder

9-20-08

by Ann Wright

Ann Wright is a retired US Army Reserves colonel with 29 years of military service. She also was a US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in December 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to the Bush administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. She is the co-author of "Dissent: Voices of Conscience," profiles of government insiders who have spoken and acted on their concerns of their governments' policies.

http://www.truthout.org/article/when-refusing-kill-has-a-higher-sentence-than-murder

Meanwhile:

"A time comes when silence is betrayal." VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN 11/4/08

Hope4Unity — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:03:40 EDT

"The truth of these words is beyond doubt, but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover, when the issues at hand seem as perplexing as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict, we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty. But we must move on."

"Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak... And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation's history that a significant number...have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement, and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance. For we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us."

There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan) and the struggle I and others have been waging in America...Then came the buildup in Vietnam (Invasion of Iraq), and I watched this program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war. And I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor (and the middle class) so long as adventures like Vietnam (Iraq)continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic, destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor (and working-class) and to attack it as such."

The Double-Standard the Republicans want you to foolishly swallow

FitNYC — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:12:02 EDT

The following is a comment that was left on the ABC News site. I think it sums up the warped double-standard viewpoint that some Americans are swallowing.

I’m a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight…..

If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”* Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.*

If your name is Barack you’re a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.* Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you’re a maverick.*

Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable.* Attend 5 different small colleges before graduating, you’re well grounded.*

If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you don’t have any real leadership experience.* If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you’re qualified to become the country’s second highest ranking executive.*

If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you’re not a real Christian.* If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.*

If you teach teach children about sexual predators, you are irresponsible and eroding the fiber of society.* If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state’s school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you’re very responsible. *

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family’s values don’t represent America ’s.* If you’re husband is nicknamed “First Dude”, with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn’t register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that hates America and advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

OK, much clearer now.

Honor Ad ...

Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:10:48 EDT

Best ad so far!

It should bring McPalin's campaign down a notch or two.

This ad should have continued for another 30 seconds: We urge you to vote for Barack Obama! He is the true candidate of change who will begin our journey to undo the damage done by George Bush and his corporate fascist friends, .............

I am donating $25 for this ad in few minutes.

See ad ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gG5q24

Which Experts? U.S-Iran: Listening & Learning vs. Carrots & Sticks

Hope4Unity — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 04:27:57 EDT

Iran-US: A study in misperceptions
By Hossein Askari

WASHINGTON - In the popular media and even in learned journals and think-tank conferences, the failure of United States-Iran rapprochement is invariably blamed on Washington's insistence on a suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment program and on Iran's intransigence on the same.

While the obstinacy of both sides may indeed be the superficial cause of the breakdown in relations, the real reason is that neither side even tries to understand the other. The cynical reader may label me as naive to even think that politicians in the world's only superpower should care about understanding an adversary's perspective. To a cynic, there is nothing to understand. Power is might, and might makes right. The US has power and it will do as it wishes. End of story!

But if the US is serious about negotiating with Iran, what does Washington need to understand about the Iran of today? What should it know about Iran's power structure? What is the input required of advisors and Iran experts for a US president and for other senior decision-makers? Do such advisors and experts even exist in the US? Does the US seek out such counsel?

Given that US presidents and secretaries of state do not vet their "experts" to see if they can deliver what is needed, it would certainly seem they don't care to understand Iran. Consulting "experts" may simply be another opportunity for photo-ops or to lead a naive public to conclude that its leaders have taken the time to carefully consider important policies and decisions.

November 4 - What do You Expect?

FitNYC — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 12:06:32 EDT

A must -read! http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/November-5th-2008-What-D-by-Hilton-Obenzinger-080911-402.html

"Vagina Monologues" Author On Palin

FitNYC — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:52:20 EDT

Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist best known for "The Vagina Monologues", wrote the following about Sarah Palin.

Drill, Drill, Drill

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.

Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.

She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States. She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.

I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S., but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.

Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?

Eve Ensler

September 5, 2008

Republican Senator Thad Cochran re McCain: “The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic, he is hot tempered, and he worries me.”

Stephen Fox, Contributing Editor New Mexico Sun News — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 12:14:41 EDT

Republican Senator Thad. Cochran from Mississippi, who has known John McCain for more than 30 years, said, The thought of him being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic, he is hot tempered, and he worries me.”

by David Le Vine, from Vail Colorado Daily newpaper:

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20080909/LETTER/809099937/1065/SPECIALA16&parentprofile=-1

Retired Major General Paul Eaton (who was responsible for training the Iraqi military) said, “I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I’m a little worried about his knee-jerk response factor. I think it is a little scary. I think this guy’s first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse.”

Retired Air Force Major General Scott Gration said, “It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people? I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him.”

His fellow Republican Senator Peter Dominici from New Mexico said, “I decided I didn’t want this guy’s finger anywhere near the trigger.”

Mr. McCain has made it clear that his priority is being a “man of action” and a bold commander in chief rather than being a thoughtful president of the United States. Furthermore, he is an impetuous, short-tempered old man who should not have his finger anywhere near the trigger!

He is a man who will likely continue George Bush’s legacy of confrontations and war. And even worst, he is a man who could well lead us into a nuclear holocaust. No, that is not a prediction, but it is a real concern.

Brief Observations: O's Slip in the Polls

Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:33:55 EDT

Our recent slip in the polls should be a reminder to all of us that nothing should or can be taken for granted.

1) We need to trip McCain and define him as the candidate he is: The same old politician, and the face of corporate fascism just like his Republican predecessor.

2) The gloves are off.

3) O needs to get mad. He needs to speak from conviction and enough of the self doubt about his funny name and him being from a different pedigree as other presidents.

4) Go for the gusto.

5) O needs to understand that he represents the hopes of hundreds of millions of Americans and act accordingly.

Losing Afghanistan

Chinni — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:21:08 EDT

Losing Afghanistan
Prolonging this good war may be worse than persisting in the bad one in Iraq.
By Leon Hadar - July 28 2008, The American Conservative

..First, we need to remember that the outside military and financial backers of the Taliban and by extension of al-Qaeda—the only governments to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government in Kabul—were our staunch allies Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates..
..We formed an ad hoc partnership with the Northern Alliance, providing them money and arms while at the same time pressuring the Pakistanis and the Saudis to end their support for groups responsible for the deaths of 3,000 innocent Americans. This was an example of a sensible Realpolitik policy—co-operating with a mixed bag of local and regional players to capture our enemies and destroy their military infrastructure. An ideological crusade to bring democracy to Afghanistan wasn’t part of the plan.
Pursuing the same kind of realistic approach, we could have encouraged the remnants of the Northern Alliance to work with their regional backers to co-opt Pakistan and members of Afghanistan’s Pashtun majority into an imperfect political settlement. This, in turn, would probably have led to the creation of a loose confederation of ethnic groups, locally controlled and secured by backing from Russia, India, Turkey, Iran—and Pakistan and the United States. Instead, we insisted on imposing our man, the Pashtun Hamid Karzai, as head of a central government..
..Iraq and Afghanistan skeptics recognize that both countries are involved in civil wars, with tribal forces fighting over territory and resources in order to preserve their power and identity. Their political, economic, and religious interests don’t necessarily correspond to or conflict with American interests. After all, in Afghanistan, Pakistan backed al-Qaeda and Iran supported the Northern Alliance. In Iraq, the U.S. has partnered with a Shi’ite movement with ties to Iran..
..One hopes that Obama and company will resolve their cognitive dissonance by modifying their belief about the moral benefit and policy utility of nation-building. Indeed, the new administration should abandon these fantasies and instead embrace a realist policy of working with regional powers to secure the limited but actual U.S. interests in Afghanistan and the rest of South and Central Asia—weakening the influence of radical Islam; damaging the infrastructure of terrorist groups; preventing unstable regimes and terrorist organizations from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction..

The Surge

gryff — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:22:51 EDT

Tonight I gather Barack was on Fox News with O'Reilly. I have not seen the video so I can only judge by two text reports.

1. Fox News: Obama: Surge Succeeded beyond our wildest dreams

2. MSNBC News: Iraqi surge exceeded expectations, Obama says

Violence maybe down ... but why ?

1. The "Awakening" in Anbar province where groups were paid by the American military to patrol neighborhoods and to fight against other Sunni insurgents. Was that part of the 'surge' or pre surge?

2. Ethnic/Religious cleansing in Baghdad. Not something that seems to be mentioned as going on. And with good reason ... people get upset about it ... be it Kosovo or Georgia or Rwanda.

Here is a map that shows population shifts in Baghdad from July 2006 to July 2007.

Is that a success beyond wildest expectations ?

It seems really sad to see something we detest elsewhere is described as a victory!

gryff :)

Senator Biden Has the Ability to Ease Tensions with Iran

Hope4Unity — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 08:08:55 EDT

The Biden factor in US-Iran relations
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi-- Asia Times

This article may be considered as "active listening" for the eyes. The article was published in Asia Times and represents the opinion of Dr. Kaveh L. Afrasiabi.

Senator Barack Obama's choice of Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate for the Democratic ticket for the US presidency is a good omen for troubled US-Iran relations and will likely translate into positive developments on that front in the event Obama moves into the White House.

dick cheney (video from 1994 interview)...

Jason Girard — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:08:24 EDT

hello friends. i don't often take time to reflect on my time in the united states navy. especially not the months, in 1991, that i spent in the persian gulf, during operation desert storm. but i saw a video on youtube today that made me so angry i had to pass it along...

as some of you know, i met dick cheney (actually served him dinner) in 1990, during the commissioning of the USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN -- my ship, of which i am a proud "plankowner" -- the very same aircraft carrier that george bush landed on to declare "mission accomplished." i was nearly court-martialed when (then secretary of defense) cheney took exception to a peace symbol i drew on his menu... i knew he was an evil bastard then, but i had no idea what we were in for.

anyway, i've attached a link to an interview that was shot in 1994, regarding operation desert storm -- a war i personally served in and received a medal for... it's frightening to actually hear cheney ask the rhetorical question, "how many dead americans is saddam worth?"

the current cheney-inspired war is still raging. apparently, he crunched the numbers again, after 9/11, and determined that saddam (and, of course, controlling the oil in the region) was worth a lot more than the 146 US soldiers killed in desert storm...

in fact, 4150 additional "dead americans" later, there is no end in sight to this madness. another 4011 US soldiers have been killed since president bush stood on the deck of MY SHIP and declared mission accomplished!

and now all of dick cheney's 1994 predictions of turmoil in the region have come true. THEY KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN!!! BUT THEY DID IT ANYWAY!!!

it begs the question: what is the life of a "dead american" worth to dick cheney? this same question can easily be extrapolated and applied to george bush and john mccain. there has never been a more important election in the history of our country. we cannot afford any more dead americans. george bush and dick cheney started this criminally-insane war. our next president has a moral obligation to end it.

PLEASE take a minute to watch this video and then visit the second link (a complete list of every US soldier killed in iraq) and remember the brave men and women who gave their lives in this horrible, criminal, immoral war. i am not a religious person. however, if you pray, please say a prayer for their families and for the wisdom of our next president...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

http://antiwar.com/casualties/list.php

thank you for your time. if you're so inclined, please feel free to forward this message along...

sincerely,

ms3 jason girard, usn
uss abraham lincoln (cvn-72) -- 1988 to 1992

Foreign Policy Panel: Obama and National Security Issues

Hope4Unity — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 03:21:29 EDT

The Center for U.S. Global Engagement and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs held a panel discussion during the Democratic National Convention entitled, "Foreign Policy and National Security in an Obama Administration." The panel discussion was originally aired by C-SPAN on 08/28/08.

The panel discussion emphasized the importance of laying foundations for relationships with the people of other nations and supporting development with a focus on needs identified from within those nations. There was also discussion of redirecting support from a militaristic approach to one of development.

While I have confidence in Senator Obama's judgment and I'm impressed with Dr. Susan Rice, some members of the panel expressed views towards Iran that I found unacceptable.

For example, why is Iran is so frequently portrayed as more of a threat to the world than any other country with nuclear weapons?

Why didn't the panel call for aggressive diplomacy and tough sanctions against Israel, India, and Pakistan for their already-existing nuclear arsenals, especially since these three countries--no less than Iran--are also in violation of UN Security Council resolutions regarding their nuclear programs?

What gives the United States the right to decide which countries are "allowed" to have nuclear weapons and which countries are not? There should be no country with nuclear weapons --including the U.S.

The following quote from Senator Obama on "investing in our common humanity" is key in improving international relations, increasing global security, and restoring our devastated domestic economy:

I will strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity. Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for. We have a significant stake in ensuring that those who live in fear and want today can live in dignity and opportunity tomorrow. -- Senator Barack Obama

Below is an overview, from Roll Call, of the discussion on National Security Issues in an Obama Administration by the Panel of Foreign Policy Advisers:

A panel of foreign policy advisers close to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) shed light on how an Obama presidency might deal with national security issues.

The group, which included former Cabinet officials, Members of the Congress and representatives from various countries, such as Britain and Afghanistan, spoke at a roundtable discussion Thursday in Denver. The panelists touched on a variety of issues, including the threats of terrorism, climate change and nuclear proliferation.

Vladimir Putin accuses Bush of provoking Georgia conflict to help John McCain

Chinni — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:49:11 EDT

Vladimir Putin accuses Bush of provoking Georgia conflict to help John McCain

Times Online - Aug 28 2008

“The suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US President.”
Mr Putin said that his defence officials had told him that Americans were operating in the conflict zone in Georgia during the fighting.
He added: “It should be admitted that they would do so only following direct orders from their leaders. Therefore, they were acting in implementing those orders, doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader.”

Foreign Policy: Obama as a world leader.

hildegunn — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:37:51 EDT

Obama chose Biden for a co-player in his presidential race. A seasoned foreign policy politician. A mature and respected man, who brings to the ticket balance to younger leader.

Now, according to the Boston Globe, critics say the choice of Biden highlights Obama's weakness when it comes to international politics.

I beg to differ. We just saw Obama travel to the Middle East and Europe. We saw him interact with world leaders with dignity, receiving a respect we have never seen in the past 7 years. I expect to see Obama emerge as one of the great world leaders when he is in office. He has a perspective on international politics that is rare in an American leader, having a parent from Africa and having lived in Indonesia. The reason I decided to campaign for Obama in my little way was that I was so overjoyed to see a person who would break the tradition of cowboy politics. The fact that he is already signaling that he is planning to engage the most experienced and seasoned advisers is just another proof what a mature leader he is. We have seen what comes from a leader who relies on his gut and his friends to make decisions. It is amazing how pundits and critics are able to turn every action into a faux pas of some sort.

Really Happy About Biden!

FitNYC — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:05:05 EDT

Barack and Joe,

Congratulations! I've worked hard for Barack and will work hard for your team.

Please end the senseless Iraq War ASAP. Bring our soldiers home, and care for them when they get home.

The end of bloodletting of American and Iraqi lives is essential. It will also help to restore our economy, as we end the deeper and deeper deficit.

Also, please, insist upon alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. Appoint Al Gore as Energy Czar if he will accept. Create a whole new American job sector building these facilities, which will end our dependence on oil.

I live in New York City. The other day, Mayor Bloomberg envisioned wind turbines atop our skycrapers. I think that is a wonderful idea.

I also like T. Boone Pickens' ideas about harvesting the free energy of wind across our Great Plains.

I am a Democrat since I was a child during JFK's administration. I want so badly to see a Democrat in the White House again after the disastrous Bush.

Be careful in what you ay and how you say it guys, because the dirty Republicans will ruin it for you and us.

Godspeed to you both!

Joanne Thomas

Fact Check: US Middle East Policy By J Street ...

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:35:39 EDT

Dear Care2 Member,

Hi, I'm Jeremy Ben Ami, Executive Director of J Street, and I'm so pleased you've joined J Street's email list through our petition asking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to halt Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank.

Welcome aboard!

We started J Street to mobilize political support for a new direction in American policy in the Middle East.

Our goals are to end the conflicts between Israel and its neighbors peacefully, to bring about a two-state solution between the Israelis and Palestinians, to avoid war with Iran, and to promote real American leadership to help resolve the conflicts in the Middle East through tough, smart diplomacy.

To do that, we have to change a crippling dynamic in American politics - namely, that a small number of neo-conservatives, right-wing Christian Zionists, and right-wing Jews monopolize the political landscape when it comes to Israel and the Middle East.

A majority of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans support smart, sensible policies that promote peace and security in the Middle East, but their voices have been drowned out by this vocal, right-wing minority.

Thanks to J Street, we are silent no more in the political arena. Today, we're 55,000 strong and growing - Americans who are tired of seven and a half years of Bush-Cheney policies that have undermined not only American interests, but also the long-term security of Israel and the stability of the Middle East.

We are already making our voice heard in the corridors of power both through J Street's advocacy and the work of its sister organization JStreetPAC. Together, we are starting to flex our political muscles:

JStreetPAC: For the first time, candidates for Congress are being endorsed and supported financially because they support strong American leadership to resolve the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. JStreetPAC has already endorsed 13 Congressional candidates who share our values, and we plan on endorsing another 15 more candidates in the 2008 election.
On Iran: Over 40,000 people have taken action to saying no to war with Iran and yes to active, aggressive diplomacy. We were part of a coordinated effort to pressure Congress to reconsider a resolution that calls for a naval blockade of Iran and would undermine efforts at strong, smart diplomacy to address the Iranian threat. Click here to see our latest action on Iran asking House Leadership to reconsider their support of the Iran blockade resolution.
On diplomacy: We ran a full-page ad in The New York Times calling out the mainstream pro-Israel organizations on their silence in the face of Israel's recent diplomatic overtures to Lebanon, Hamas, and Syria. Click here to view the ad (PDF).
On right-wing Christian Zionists like John Hagee: J Street delivered tens of thousands of petitions to Senator Joe Lieberman asking him not to speak at the annual conference of John Hagee's group, Christians United for Israel on July 21st. Click here to see pictures of our petition delivery to Lieberman.
In the Media: Our work has already received national attention in leading media on and off line. For a complete collection of articles, click here. To read some of the writings of people associated with J Street, click here.

We have lots of hard work ahead of us to make an impact on this critical election and to translate those political gains into policy change next year. In these next few crucial months, we plan to:

Endorse and fundraise (through JStreetPAC) for Congressional candidates who share our values on American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Give you more ways to take action on the issues you care about related to American foreign policy in the Middle East.
Build a movement dedicated to a new American foreign policy that the politicians can't ignore.

I hope you'll join us in this important fight. I know there is a lot going on in this critical election year, and things will likely get pretty intense. But I hope you'll take a few moments when you can to participate in J Street and help us take American policy in the Middle East in the right direction.

Feel free to be in touch with us as info@jstreet.org to share your thoughts, comments, and concerns about this message and any of our other campaigns.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Ben-Ami
Executive Director
J Street Family of Organizations ----------

ABOUT J STREET
J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement. J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region. Learn more at our website by clicking one of the links above.

Don't forget to check us out on Facebook!
To ensure that J Street messages reach your inbox, please add info@jstreet.org to your address book.
To contact J Street, please just reply to this email. You can also write to us at info@jstreet.org.
If you are having trouble reading this email, please click on one of the links above to go to our website.

Russia Never Wanted a War

Chinni — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:04:13 EDT

Russia Never Wanted a War

By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV - August 19, 2008

..Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was already being accused of aggression; news reports were often an embarrassing recitation of the Georgian leader’s deceptive statements.
It is still not quite clear whether the West was aware of Mr. Saakashvili’s plans to invade South Ossetia, and this is a serious matter. What is clear is that Western assistance in training Georgian troops and shipping large supplies of arms had been pushing the region toward war rather than peace..
..Those who rush to judgment on what’s happening in the Caucasus, or those who seek influence there, should first have at least some idea of this region’s complexities. The Ossetians live both in Georgia and in Russia. The region is a patchwork of ethnic groups living in close proximity. Therefore, all talk of “this is our land,” “we are liberating our land,” is meaningless. We must think about the people who live on the land.
The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been tried more than once in the past two decades, and it has always boomeranged.What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Mr. Saakashvili has repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons that have now become abundantly clear..

Will Operation Brimstone lead to a Naval Blockade of Iran?

Bridget — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 19:23:05 EDT

INFORMED SPECULATION:Blockades: Acts of War

Were just completed U.S. War Games preparation for a Naval Blockade of Iran?by Stephen Lendman

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2008/081808Lendman.shtml

Response to 9/11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine

Chinni — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:46:20 EDT

Response to 9/11 Offers Outline of McCain Doctrine

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK August 16, 2008

..he also began to suggest that he saw a new “opportunity” to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq.
“Just as Sept. 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand our freedom,” Mr. McCain told a NATO conference in Munich in early 2002, urging the Europeans to join what he portrayed as an all but certain assault on Saddam Hussein. “A better world is already emerging from the rubble.”..
..“He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. “Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.”
Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same..

Russia-Georgia Conflict Fueled by Rush to Control Caspian Energy Resources

Chinni — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:31:20 EDT

Russia-Georgia Conflict Fueled by Rush to Control Caspian Energy Resources

..Even under the Clinton administration, when Eduard Shevardnadze was the president of Georgia, who was hardly a paragon of democracy, President Clinton said that we need Georgia as an energy ally of the United States. And that was the basis on which the US forged a military alliance with Georgia.
And since then, we’ve poured hundreds of millions of dollars into beefing up the Georgian military. And this is unmistakable in the State Department and military Department of Defense justifications for arming the Georgian military, specifically to protect the BTC pipeline against sabotage and attack. So, looking into the Pentagon and State Department documents, there’s no question that this is about energy security, not about democracy or human rights or the other justifications that have been given.. - Michael Klare on Democracy Now!

Georgia : A Blow to US Energy - Steve LeVine, Businessweek

..At the core of the struggle is a vast network of actual and planned pipelines for shipping Caspian Sea oil to the world market from countries that were once part of the Soviet empire. American policymakers working with a BP-led consortium had already helped build oil and natural gas pipelines across Georgia to the Turkish coast. Next on the drawing board: another pipeline through Georgia to carry natural gas from the eastern shore of the Caspian Sea to Austria—offering an alternate supply to Western Europe, which now depends on Russia for a third of its energy.
But after the mauling Georgia got, "any chance of a new non-Russian pipeline out of Central Asia and into Europe is pretty much dead," says Chris Ruppel, an energy analyst at Execution, a brokerage in Greenwich, Conn..
Map : An End Run Around Russia

Picturing Casualties

Chinni — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:38:38 EDT

Picturing Casualties nytimes

Zoriah Miller, the freelance photographer who took this image and others of marines killed in a June 26 suicide attack and posted them on his Web site, was subsequently forbidden to work in Marine Corps-controlled areas of Iraq. Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the Marine Corps commander in Iraq, is now seeking to have Mr. Miller barred from all United States military facilities throughout the world. Mr. Miller has since left Iraq...

Three major US naval strike forces due this week in Persian Gulf

Bridget — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:16:18 EDT

I'm really beginning to be concerned about what is happening in the Persian Gulf. I afraid this information isn't getting enough news coverage. The Olympics and Russian/Georgia War are taking precedence.

"The United States had sent three new American flotillas to the Persion Gulf, raising the number of United States strike forces in the Middle East to 5. The United States, France, Britain, and Canada are planning a naval blockade to deny Iran imports of refined oil products."
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/three-major-us-naval-strike-forces-due-week-persian-gulf

Operation Brimstone

Bridget — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 11:11:57 EDT

I may be over-reacting to this news but I wonder why Operation Brimstone hasn't receive more coverage in the US press. Apparently two of the US aircraft carries that participated in Operation Brimstone are headed to the Gulf.

"Operation Brimstone ended only one week ago. This was the joint US/UK/French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran and the likely resulting war in the Persian Gulf area. The massive war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the "enemy force"." - Stirling

http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/08/massive-us-naval-armada-heads-for-iran.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/07/mil-080729-nns06.htm

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104233164&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Iraqis: Deal close on plan for US troops to leave

Bridget — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:43:03 EDT

While this is good news I want more details. I'm also concerned about any agreement crafted by the current Bush administration. As far as I'm concerned Barack Obama's stance on this issue was impetus for this happening.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_us_bases

Lost Democracy: How the Corporations Stole America

Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:53:02 EDT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SV_mvc4zKw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igzUtGMF9Uw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ACJ1wjVA4&feature=related

Orwell rolls in his grave.

Max Hastings in The Guardian: “Negotiating with Iran is maddening, but bombing would be a catastrophe”

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:47:36 EDT

Negotiating with Iran is maddening, but bombing would be a catastrophe

US military posturing towards Tehran lacks credibility and, in any case, such action would fail in all its purposes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/04/iran.usa

Max Hastings. The Guardian, August 4, 2008

The favoured season for launching wars used to come when the harvest had been gathered. This year, there is talk of an Israeli strike against Iran in November or December, when it would no longer embarrass the US election process but George Bush will still be in the White House during the presidential transition.

Last year, following a US intelligence submission which stated that Iran was not actively pursuing the creation of atomic weapons, a direct American attack on the country's nuclear facilities became implausible - and remains so. But Jerusalem and Washington are talking seriously about a possible Israeli strike, for which American collusion would be indispensable.

In Washington at the weekend, Shaul Mofaz, Israel's deputy defence minister and a candidate for the premiership, said of negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear programme: "It's a race against time, and time is winning." He repeated the familiar Israeli warning that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would be "unacceptable".

Optimists welcomed last month's meeting in Geneva, at which the US under-secretary of state, William Burns, met Iranian delegates. This was the highest level contact for decades between the two nations. Yet there remains no sign of Iranian retreat from its longstanding position, that it is entitled to maintain a uranium enrichment programme. Pessimists fear that the Burns trip was designed to highlight Tehran's intractability, in advance of military action.

Last month, Tehran announced that it now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a dramatic increase in its last declared figure. This was probably an exaggeration for negotiating purposes, but gives no comfort at all to the UN, the EU or anybody else seeking signs of a breakthrough towards a deal.

Most Europeans would like to hear their new American idol, Barack Obama, warn the Israelis against undertaking military action against Iran. Even if Obama does not yet sit in the White House, no Jerusalem government could lightly defy America's likely next president on an issue of such gravity.

But no man who wants to win a US election dares to qualify his support for Israel. Obama's statements during his brief visit to the country last month were indistinguishable from those of Bush. There seem grounds for anticipating that Obama may be less radical, more indulgent towards Israel, than visionaries suppose. A McCain administration, meanwhile, would merely pick up where Bush leaves off.

There is no doubt about the desire of both the Israeli and US governments to destroy Iran's nuclear plants by force. Two years ago, a Washington political guru suggested to me that Bush's last months would be the time to watch, when he became obsessed with his legacy. "Solving" the Iran nuclear issue, said my friend, would be foremost in Bush's mind. So, indeed, it seems today.

The best prospect of averting this disaster - and, of course, many of us would perceive it as such - lies in the intractable practical difficulties. The US military has briefed the president that, with most of Iran's facilities underground, only nuclear bunker-busting bombs offer a real prospect of achieving their destruction.

It remains hard to believe that the US could countenance the use of such weapons, by their own aircraft or those of the Israelis. Conventional bombs could inflict some damage. A limited attack would demonstrate Israel's ability to strike at will if the Iranians persist with their programme.

But the economic and political costs of such an exhibition of force would be appalling. Oil prices would soar to dizzier heights. Any possibility of dialogue between Iran and the west would vanish for years to come. The Iranians would probably fulfil their threat, to retaliate with terrorist action against US interests worldwide. Former US air force colonel Sam Gardiner, a respected military analyst, suggests that bombing Iran "would be unlikely to yield the results American policymakers do want, and ... likely to yield results that they do not".

The Iranian government may be reckless - even fanatical - but it is not mad. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have assuredly made these calculations for themselves. The US is seeking to behave with the outward assurance of a superpower, while crippled by its difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US wishes to bestride the Middle East as an armoured knight, but its foes know that beneath the plates it is bleeding badly.

The Iranians appear to be gambling that, at the last ditch, the US will flinch from taking military action, or from allowing Israel to do so, because the costs would be unacceptably high. The implacable unhelpfulness of Russia and China about western purposes towards Tehran strengthens Iranian resolve. Moscow and Beijing have no more desire than the Americans to see Iran possess nuclear weapons. But they both gain satisfaction from Washington's embarrassments, and from strengthening their own influence in the Middle East at American expense.

However deep is European distaste for the Bush administration, for the Iraq war and for the excesses of Israeli policy, it seems important not to lose sight of some basics. The Tehran government aspires to regional hegemony, which it would be unlikely to exercise in an enlightened fashion. Iran is an exceptionally nasty elective dictatorship that denies freedoms and represses human rights, not least those of women. It is deplorable that Israel and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, but the world will become an even less safe place if Iran also acquires them. Its desire to do so seems hard to dispute, even if doubts persist about its proximity to fulfilment.

Thus, America's fundamental objective deserves endorsement, which it receives from the UN and the EU through their backing for sanctions. The difficulty, as usual, is that so many issues are entwined - Iraq and Israel foremost among them. Lawrence Freedman has just published a new book, A Choice of Enemies, in which he examines America's relationship with the Middle East over the past 30 years. His conclusion is that today's problems stretch beyond anything that can be dignified as solutions. They can only be "managed or endured".

This is unspectacular, but seems right. The folly of American military posturing towards Iran is its absence of credibility. That is to say, no one doubts Bush's executive power to launch an air attack, or sanction the Israelis to do so. However, it is evident to all but the neocons and some dangerous people in Jerusalem that such action must fail in its purposes, making matters worse rather than better.

The dreadful Bibi Netanyahu, who may soon again become Israel's prime minister, declared that 9/11 was "good for Israel", and so from his viewpoint it was. It left the Muslim world almost friendless in the US, and increased the readiness of Americans to perceive the Israelis as comrades in arms against a common enemy.

Yet the fallout from a putative Israeli attack on Iran - and I hope I am right to use the word only figuratively - should cause even post-Bush Americans to perceive that this is no way to order the world. Negotiating with the Iranians is a maddening and frustrating business. But bombing them would be a catastrophe for us all. Many fingers will need to be tightly crossed between now and next January.

Lessons from VietNam

John Overton — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:49:11 EDT

McCain has much to say about the importance of "success" in Iraq.

"We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East. Iraq must not become a failed state, a haven for terrorists, or a pawn of Iran."

To those of us who remember VietNam, doesn't this sound familiar?

VietNam was a civil war, between the landless peasantry (who became the VietCong) and the French Colonialist government, who owned the land. The French were wise enough to leave, but we intervened on the misapprehension that if VietNam became "Communist", so would all Southeast Asia. Well, we lost, and it did, but Southeast Asia didn't and now Communism is dead.

So doesn't McCain's statement seem the product of the same lousy intelligence and foreign policy?

The Iraq war is not "winnable" by us. Once Saddam was eliminated, sectarian conflict was inevitable, because it was "a failed state". (Bush senior even knew this, which is why Desert Storm stopped short of Baghdad.) We can't repair a failed state, only the regional powers and the Iraqi people themselves (what few are left in the country) can, and it probably will become a protectorate of Iran, because the Shiites will want that protection against their Sunni neighbors.

McCain's understanding of all this is pathetically weak, epecially for someone with his level of "experience". On this issue at least, he is probably the least capable Republican that sought the nomination. Even is one has doubts about Obama, one can have no reasonable doubt about how poor a job McCain will do on Iraq. He has learned nothing from history.

Why the Surge Can't Work

Jedidiah Palosaari — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:38:03 EDT

This is not to argue that "the surge" won't work in the future, or wouldn't have worked in the past. It is not to say that the surge doesn't work based on what the results have been so far. It is to say that it fundamentally can't work.

Of course, it hasn't work based on the results so far. It has reduced the number of deaths of US troops, but not the numbers of Iraqi civilians. Iraqis are still fleeing the country, and still dying in great numbers. In areas with high US troop presence like the Green Zone there is safety and reduced deaths. Where there are no troops, where troops have left, the death continues, as does the recruitment drive for al Qai'da. (And the presence of US troops provides the impetus for recruitment.)

But the results to date can never justify the increase in US troops. For we should never have been over there to begin with. And not just because this war was wrong. War always means one side loses. Obama seems to have forgotten this, in his support for a surge in Afghanistan. Obama would say that we should not have been there, but we must make the best of it. But the point is that the use of the ways of war is flawed at its core.

Obama seems to have bought into the idea that the use of soldiers, and their increase, is at times justified. He states that things are better, in part because of the increase in US troops, and in part because of agreements with other Iraqi factions. This is admittedly better than the consensus view in America, that the Surge has worked. But it still dramatically misses the main point. Many of us have supported Obama because he was right on the war. He rejected going to war, and he rejected abrogating Congressional rights and duties to declare war. But now he seems to buy into the idea that war itself can work.

For a Christian such as Obama, his Lord has made it clear that war is never an option; we should not resist an evil doer, but should rather love our enemies, and do good to those who hurt us. We do this because we recognize that of God in others, recognizing that all humans are created i the image of God, and therefore are the seat of his Spirit. We can not therefore attack our brother, he who can hold the ever-living God. I recognize that no US President will ever truly follow the guidelines of Jesus Christ. That requires a leader like Ghandi- and Ghandi would never get elected in this country. Yet it remains that it is not just that war is morally bankrupt, but that war does not practically work.

War results in one side losing. It results in vanquishing your enemy. This leads to bitterness, and promises of revenge, and future reprisals by that vanquished enemy. Thus America funds the Shah, the Shah represses his people, and the Ayotollah rises up in revolution. Thus America defends the Afghani people from the Soviet invasion, funding and training Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in the art of war, allowing Osama to rise up against America, requiring America to attack his host country, creating a breeding ground for al Qai'da recruitment, and embittered Taliban to rise up against America.

If some war is immoral, and if some war is impractical for reducing violence, then it remains that more war is also immoral, and impractical. Thus the so-called surge can not, in the long run, succeed. It is wrong to send people overseas to kill others people; it is more wrong to send more people. Violence begets violence, and sending more people to kill more people will lead to more anger and bitterness. Sure, it may not be revealed now. The terrorists may come out of the woodwork after we leave. It may even take a generation. But the more we send more troops over, the greater will be our future problems. This is not unique to Iraq. As goes Iraq, shall go Afghanistan, and any other place a great power sends in occupying forces.

Obama, you have some great ideas about being willing to talk with your enemies, in rejecting gunboat diplomacy and working with the rest of the world in peaceful ways. I call on you to remember these high-minded ideals, and return to a higher way. Do not believe the hopeless mantra of Bush and McCain, that violence works, and the surge has worked. Do not begin your own surge in that quagmire of Afghanistan. Stick to your guns in withdrawing troops in Iraq, as you are, and begin to let the Taliban know of your sincere desire to find common ground with them, to talk to them, to see how we can all get to yes. Your recent prayer at the Wailing Wall demonstrates your deep and abiding humility. Negotiations, as you know, don't require that either side lose, as war always does. Rather, it only requires that one side be willing to be humble enough to talk. Let our nation be great for a new reason. Let us release a new type of shock and awe. Let the world marvel at the humility of the United States of America.

"The Walls Cannot Stand" Barack's Speech in Berlin 7-24-08

Sheldon from Doylestown — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 02:54:56 EDT

7-24-08 Obama in Berlin “The walls cannot stand”http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/berlinvideo/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25835684#25835684

Don't Laugh: Can Saudi Arabia become the "Mecca" of Green?

Nick Dahan — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:55:15 EDT

Even the title sounds a bit out there. What, the Middle East, the world’s largest producer of oil, becoming a center for green technology, and renewable energy? Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? And yet, the sheer incongruity of it all may just be enough to make it work. In a world of increasing uncertainty, sometimes it is the unexpected that is to be expected.

Look at the world, and what do you see? A lot of good things, that’s for sure. Beauty surrounds us wherever we choose to look. But increasingly we are also facing a gathering perfect storm in the form of three types of threats: the Extremism, the Environment, and the Economy. We’ll call these the 3-E’s for short. Since these three threats are inter-related, and inextricably linked, like spaghetti and tomato sauce, it makes sense that a solution can be found which solves all three in one shot.

How are the 3-E’s related to one another? In all sorts of ways: Extremist ideologies prevent people from coming together to tackle environmental and economic problems. The degradation of the environment can spur extremist thinking and economic woes. A declining or unjust economy can become fertile ground for extremist thinking and can push people to further degrade the environment. And the list of inter-connections between the 3-E’s goes on and on.

Since the threats we face are closely connected, it makes sense that a solution can be found which addresses all three in one shot. What would such a solution look like? Well, at least part of the solution could be to revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East, and to neutralize some of the ideological extremism that is found there, by investing to create good paying jobs, jobs which are geared toward the protection of the environment. In short, invest in the Middle East to create jobs which protect the environment.

Conditions on the ground seem to be ripe for such a solution: Rising oil prices have made it possible for green technology and renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind power, and geothermal, to become competitive and even profitable. There is also, as we speak, a gathering consensus with respect to the threats we face, as a species, from Global Warming. It is becoming increasingly possible, for example, that by the year 2050, if we do nothing, the sea level may rise some 20 feet, thus flooding 60% of humanity. Or at least, the risk of such an outcome may be great enough to warrant decisive action now, even if we’re not completely sure. At the same time, the threat from ideological extremism has been perceived, experienced, and acknowledged, worldwide, and the world seems poised to adopt solutions which will curb such threats.

So how do we put together all of the pieces of a possible solution? Let’s start by focusing on what resources and motivations we have available to us as we speak. Oil producing countries, like Saudi Arabia, have untold billions to invest, but as yet have not invested their funds to create thriving economies, and are themselves beset by the threat posed by ideological extremists. Israel is on the cusp of cutting edge green technology, and is enjoying a thriving economy, but has not as yet come to enjoy the security that can only come from peace. America and other Western nations have plenty of public and private investment dollars, as well as business and technological expertise, but they feel insecure in a world threatened by extremist ideology, environmental harm, and economic uncertainty. The West may also be overwhelmed by the amount of investment that is will take to switch over to green, especially as it faces current economic realities on the ground.

So how do we make it all work? How do we move the immoveable? We start by convincing the world at large that change is in the air. And we do it not just by talking, but by creating facts on the ground which speak louder than words. We build a project, a special project that resonates with hope, a project for all to see, and for all to follow.

Start with a single solitary project in the West Bank, a very unique place in the Middle East, a place that resonates with symbolism. Use Israeli technology, Arab and Israeli management, Palestinian workers, and Saudi financing, to build a factory that produces a green energy product which is technologically significant in some innovative way. Promote the project around the world to attract more such funding, for more such projects, for more such jobs, for more such environmental protection, for more such neutralizing of extremism, using funds from the West, and from the Arab world as well. Pretty soon, if everything goes as it should—stranger things have happened—your project won’t just be a project anymore, but rather a movement for change. Your project will say to the world that a Vision of Hope could be made real if people simply choose to make it so, one project at a time.

How would you convince America and the West? You would say that the writing is on the wall with regard to Global Warming. You either change, or you’re all going down. And the economy is not in such great shape either. You need to create some good paying jobs, both here and abroad. But even if you go green, and even if you fix the economy, those things by themselves won’t be enough, not if you continue to have ideological extremists on your back. So the answer for America is to go for the complete package: Create good paying jobs here and the Middle East, jobs which will protect the environment, jobs which will help to neutralize ideological hate, and jobs which help to cure your economic woes.

How would you convince Israel? Israel is a coastline country, and if the sea level rises 20 feet, by 2050 no less, what will become of your country? It’s time to make something happen with regard to Global Warming and with regard to peace. Skirting around the issues with empty talk will not do. Use your technological prowess and your economic drive to help revitalize the stagnant economies of the Middle East. Help to design and build projects in the West Bank, and throughout the Middle East, which protect the environment, and which help quell the ideological fervor of extremist thinking. Your ultimate security rests in brokering a peace, a peace based on fulfilling mutual needs and creating mutual economic interdependence.

How would you convince Saudi Arabia and other nations of the Middle East? The current model that has been put in place will not hold. We all know that. Sooner or later, the oil will run out. And even before then, the West will be forced to find new sources of energy given the pressure of climate change. Global Warming weighs heavily on us all. Why not dare to dream the impossible, and to make the impossible come true? Why not create a new model, a model based on a Vision of Hope. Have the foresight and the courage to diversify your investments by becoming a big player in going green. Get in on the ground floor of the world wide demand for renewable energy. Convert oil profits into green profits, by creating jobs which protect the environment. Use good paying jobs to revitalize your economy, and to neutralize the hold of extremist thinking. Inspire a sense of hope in your people, and restore a sense of pride in the Arab world.

Is any of this possible? You’re asking me? In all honesty, no one can know for sure. But my sense is that there is no alternative. We either confront the threats we face head on, or we’re going down. It’s that simple, and everything we know and love hangs in the balance. Confronting all these three threats—the Extremists, the Environment, and the Economy—in one shot, makes a lot of sense, because: each threat is related to the other two, a solution for one can be part of a solution for all three, and a solution for one will not work unless it is tied to a solution for all three.

We find ourselves in a fix of immense proportions, a fix we’ve created for ourselves. We’re in a real pickle, so to speak. If we are to survive, and that is quickly becoming an open question, we will have to aspire to the wisdom of God, as we put together all of the pieces of a possible solution, not unlike how He has put together all of the pieces of His creation. Only then could it truly be said of us that we were created in “the image of God,” which is perhaps what He is waiting to see in us.

If you are at all interested, or if you have a rich Saudi uncle, please visit us at www.sellingavisionofhope.org

There is No "War on Terrorism"

Jedidiah Palosaari — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:46:12 EDT

Are our memories truly this short? Have we forgotten how much we laughed at George Bush for mixing his metaphors? A primitive laugh in agony, to be sure, for we recognized the danger in his falsehood. He sought to use the language of the War on Drugs (now largely forgotten), and apply it to terrorism. The problem was, everyone recognized that the War on Drugs was a metaphor. One could only use it in reference to terrorism in the same way. Terrorism is an idea. It is a noun, but not a proper one. It is neither person, nor country, nor organization. It is a concept. One can no more have a war on terrorism than one can have a war on an idea. That is to say, one can do so to the extent that one remembers it is a metaphor.

But the danger remains- if it is truly believed to be an actual war, then George Bush gains great power, for he is a war-time leader. And this is indeed what happened. Though we weren't at war, he was granted the liberty of movement as if we were at war. This liberty given up by the US congress lead directly to the carte blanche ability to invade Afghanistan, and then Iraq. Then we were truly at war- with Afghanistan, and with Iraq. And because of these wars, many 100s of 1000s are dead, and millions made refugees. All because we allowed our leader to mix his metaphors.

Imagine then, my deep and abiding chagrin, to hear my beloved candidate now using the same hated Bushian language, referring to the "War on Terrorism", as he states that Afghanistan is where the front is. No, Obama, and again I say "No!" There is no war on terrorism. There is a war in Iraq, there is a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, but not on terrorism.

Just semantics? No. For witness what the appropriation of Bush-speak is leading Obama into. He is now speaking of the need to Surge in Afghanistan, in order to deal with the Taliban there. He will reduce troops significantly, withdraw completely in 16 months, give or take, in Iraq. But he will increase troops in Afghanistan- for this is the head-point of the War on Terror.

Have we forgotten so easily why we were against Bush's actions in Afghanistan originally? He too quickly was happy to engage in war, without regard to the consequences, in the heat and fury after 9/11. Because he saw 9/11 as an attack on America, rather than the world, as witnessed by the attack on the World Trade Center, Bush ignored the possible cost to human lives, in complete contravening of any semblance of Just War Theory.

We invaded Afghanistan because we were not willing to give negotiations a chance- as many pointed out at the time. (But of course, that's just Saturday Morning Quarterbacking.) We ignored the culture of the peoples because that was inconvenient. Yes, they had Osama bin Laden, and yes, they could have given him up. But in their culture, a person in the country is a guest, and one does not disown their guests. This is a deep and abiding belief in the Middle East- some thing that we should at the very least be familiar with, as it is central to the scriptures of the dominant religion that Western civilization is based upon.

Without this recognition, the story of Lot with his guests makes no sense. The men of Sodom and Gomorrah were exceedingly wicked, and demanded that Lot send out his guests so that the men could rape them. Lot comes out, and tells them this is evil. So far we understand. But then he makes the strangest statement- he offers his own daughters in the place of his guests!

Now we find such a response to Sophie's Choice exceedingly repugnant, and rightfully so. If one had to decide, God forbid, how can one choose against one's own daughters? But one must remember that not all cultures have the same ethics that we do. Indeed, most theologians agree that the sin which Sodom and Gomorrah were published for was not homosexuality, but rather a lack of hospitality, a cardinal sin in the ancient world.

While I wouldn't suggest that most Middle Eastern fathers would make the same choice today, the commitment to hospitality remains just as strong. Despite many statements from cultural experts at the time, Bush ignored their expertise, and pressed ahead. He went to bomb Afghanistan, rather than to have the slow negotiations which would have recognized and honored the Taliban and Afghani's commitment to ethics of hospitality, while moving forward to get them to finally give up Osama bin Laden. Instead of negotiations, Bush went for ultimatums, the only form of talk he appears to understand. He was too eager to grab Osama bin Laden, and so like the proverbial monkey grabbing too strongly, Osama slipped through his fingers. One can not argue our military approach lead to success, for we still search for him. What it did lead to was countless deaths- American, Afghani, and Afghani civilians. Sure, the repressive regime of the Taliban was removed, but that was never our motivation- and now the Taliban has long returned to their own Surge, reaching levels of control close to what they had before we invaded Afghanistan. Do we want to find Osama, and stop the Taliban today? Or do we want to find a way to change the hearts of Arabs and Muslims, the Taliban and the Iraqi insurgent, so they realize that they should end the killing, that they should fight no more forever? The old failed policy focused on immediate results, and achieved them. It left the long term legacy of failure to us.

The Troop Increase in Iraq has not worked. Sure, American deaths are reduced- as we would expect, when we send more people with guns over there. And Iraqi civilian deaths are up- as we would expect when we send more people with guns over there. So why is Obama proposing that we send more troops to Afghanistan, when such a policy has so abysmally failed in Iraq? This is a candidate who has campaigned as something new, and spoke of talking with world leaders, even our enemies.

So I challenge you, Senator Obama: Do as you said you would. Do something new. Do what we should have done originally in Afghanistan. Go to the Taliban, and begin to talk with them. Negotiate with them. Recognize where they are coming from, and what their needs are. Be bold on our utter rejection of their human rights violations. Be bold on our demand for their help to capture Osama. But do this in negotiation. Sure, it's slower. Sure, it's not sexy Shock and Awe. But it is far more just. It is far more kind. And it is far more likely to achieve our goals.

Bush’s Executive Order Criminalizes Dissent

Amunaor — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:52:05 EDT

Are we to be caught, like the proverbial frog, leisurely swimming in a pot of luke-warm water, which temperature is incrementally increased in a manner so as not to alarm the comfortably bathing frog to the point it is inclined to jump from the pot? Eventually the heat becomes sufficiently great to where the sinew of the frog’s muscular structure has become overwhelmed by the heat, incapacitating the frog from saving itself as it boils to death.

First the Patriot Act

Then FISA

Bush’s Executive Order Criminalizing Dissent--

Everything is now in place. All that is required for the neocon regime to implement and turn loose the treachery provided in above documents is a flash of panic.

For the necessary flash of panic, false-flag operations may already be underway in Iran:

Two members of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) have been killed during clashes with rebels in Iran's East Azerbaijan Province.

US President George W. Bush signed a secret finding in March authorizing a covert offensive against Iran.

Actions permitted under the secret directive include arming and funding terrorist groups such as the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) and the Jundullah (army of god) in an effort to destabilize the Iranian government...

Full Story Here

“Of course the people do not want war. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism” Herman Goering-Nazi Leader-Nuremberg Trial

What the hell are the, so called, majority Democrats doing – In Our Name!?

The White House is no longer so white, for it has gathered over itself a persistent dark cloud which the assembly insists on nurturing. They have made of itself the focus as a laughing stock for the entire universe.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Why Obama Should Go Overseas

Jedidiah Palosaari — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:25:52 EDT

While it hasn't been done before this election cycle, there are many reasons to travel abroad while you're running for President. McCain went over to Iraq to show people what an expert he was, how he knew about foreign affairs because he'd been a prisoner and had killed people overseas. Unfortunately, he struggled with the difference between Sunni and Shi'i as much as he struggles to remember that Czechoslovakia no longer exists. Now after months of McCain calling Obama to go overseas to learn a thing or two, Obama has also gone to Afghanistan, and soon Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, England, France, and Germany.

When you're running for President, the last thing you want to do is respond to your opponent's criticisms, or even appear like you are doing so. It makes your opponent seem to be in charge of the conversation. This is an especially important point if you are actually a greater expert in the particular field than your opponent.

One of the primary reasons I'm voting for Obama is his vast international experience. Sure, there are plenty of other past nominees who knew about the rest of the world. Obama's the first candidate who's actually lived it. He's the son of Kenyans and grew up overseas in Indonesia and Hawaii- which is part of the US, but the most international of all the states, and only became a state two years before he was born. Obama experienced horrific poverty and disease in those around him, growing up in a 2/3rds World country. There's a reason the non-voting rest of the world loves him- they know that, as a Third Culture Kid, he can relate to them. He can relate to them not just as an oppressor or occupying force, but as one who has lived with them, walked with them, eaten their food and lived in their homes.

Obama has absolutely nothing to prove internationally. McCain has everything to prove. Obama has no need to show himself aware of the world and the nuances of foreign affairs, nor answer to the likes of McCain. This is the purpose of his trip: to go out and establish further relationships with the leaders of other countries, and more importantly the peoples, to begin the business of conducting government and reestablishing America's relationships with those overseas. He can begin to model servant leadership by listening to other countries and respecting their point of view and the wisdom they can bring to the table. For we as America don't know everything, and we can't do it on our own.

Or at least, that should be the purpose of his trip. President Obama, it's time to start governing.

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:26:59 EDT

Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/maliki-endorses-obama-tim_b_113845.html

In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.

Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.

But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.

This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet.
While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."

Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?

As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.

Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.

Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence.
The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.

Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.

As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.

The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.

Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:

Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].

Send Karl Rove to Jail

VM — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:11:21 EDT

From Bravenewfilms.org:

"This sounds like a dream, doesn't it? Well, it's not. We have a unique opportunity right now to send Karl Rove to jail, but only if we take immediate action.

All we have to do is pressure the 40 members of the House Judiciary Committee, make them hold Rove in contempt and send him to jail. We've never had such a direct opportunity to hold Rove accountable. No, this is not enough punishment for his years and years of crimes, but it's a huge start, and will send a very clear message to the entire Bush administration.

We put together this video to explain the issues surrounding Rove's failure to testify before Congress, and why Rove should be held in contempt and sent to jail. Check out Send Karl Rove to Jail, and sign our petition to ensure that the HJC holds Rove in contempt. "

Watch the video and sign the petition.

http://sendkarlrovetojail.com/?utm_source=rgemail

US and the International Criminal Court

Chinni — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:24:22 EDT

The US and the International Criminal Court Then and Now

by David Scheffer, July 16 2008

One decade ago, on July 17th, 1998, I sat in a crowded room in Rome with diplomats from 148 other nations knowing that I failed my country and the world. As head of the United States delegation to the talks creating the International Criminal Court, I rejected the final text of the treaty for the court. Since then, 106 countries, including almost all of our allies, have joined the court while Washington remains outside it...
..As the American negotiator I argued that the court would need the United States to function effectively on the global stage. But following years of misconduct under the Bush administration, one might ponder whether it is the United States that needs the International Criminal Court to help restore its credibility and reassert fundamental principles of humanity.

Obama vs. McCain on the ICC

by Josh Rovenger, July 1, 2008

..Obama has stated , “Now that it’s operational, we are learning more and more about how the ICC functions. The court has pursued charges only in cases of the most serious and systematic crimes and it is in America’s interests that these most heinous of criminals, like the perpetrators of the genocide in Darfur, are held accountable. These actions are a credit to the cause of justice and deserve full American support and cooperation.” This has led to his commitment that “the United States should cooperate with the ICC investigation in a way that reflects American sovereignty and promotes our national security interests.”
Although Obama holds this outlook on the ICC, and would have a better relationship with the Court than the current president, the probability that the U.S. would sign the Rome Treaty shortly after he takes office is slim. As his former advisor, Samantha Power remarked, “Until we’ve closed Guantanamo, gotten out of Iraq, renounced torture and rendition, and shown a different face for America, American membership in the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.” She concludes, “If Barack Obama ratified the ICC or announced support for it on day one, two things would happen. One, it would have the chance of discrediting the ICC in the short term, and two, he would so strain his relations with the U.S. military that it would actually be really hard to recover.” However, Obama does promise to “consult thoroughly with our military commanders and also examine the track record of the court before reaching a decision on whether the U.S. should become a party to the ICC.”..

Court of First Resort

By SAMANTHA POWER, February 10, 2005

Success in Iraq

richard kennedy — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:00:47 EDT

I'm not a knowledgeable politician, but I know that the Republican competitiion cannot continue to express that the surge is successful without a response that challenges that notion. I do know that with between 3 and 5 million refugees from Iraq, that this adventure is a disaster waiting for an appropriate time to explode. If we accept their idea that success is measured by their standards, not by the real results of this terrible policy, they will mislead that American Public again. Please , we should create a positive and reasonable response.

US picks compromise over confrontation with Iran

Candace N. - V.O.B — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:47:07 EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- For now, the Bush administration has chosen compromise over confrontation in dealing with Iran's disputed nuclear program with a dramatic gesture intended to demonstrate commitment to a negotiated solution.

In breaking with past policy to send a top diplomat to weekend talks with Iran's chief nuclear envoy, the administration has in its waning months refined its position on contact with the hardline Iranian regime, much as it did in the ongoing effort to rid North Korea of its atomic weapons, which has shown recent promise.

U.S. officials on Wednesday dismissed comparisons between the administration's approach to the two remaining members of Bush's "axis of evil," but they acknowledged broad similarities in the end game.

They said the participation of William Burns, the State Department's third-ranking diplomat, in Saturday's meeting in Switzerland is aimed at proving America's resolve to peacefully prevent Iran from developing nuclear arms while also exploiting perceived splits in Iran's hardline Islamic government.

"What this does show is how serious we are when we say that we want to try to solve this diplomatically," White House press secretary Dana Perino told reporters a day after President Bush signed off on dispatching Burns to the meeting with Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili.

At the meeting being led by European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, Jalili is expected to give Iran's definitive answer to incentives offered to Tehran last month by the United States and five other nations in exchange for its suspension of activities that can produce the ingredients needed for a bomb.

Burns will not negotiate with Jalili but officials said he will listen to his presentation of Iran's final answer to the package. Burns will also restate a U.S. offer for formal negotiations with Iran if it suspends uranium enrichment and reprocessing. He will warn that if the deal is not accepted, the Iranian government can expect more sanctions to be imposed on its banking and financial sectors. And, he will remind Iran that Bush has not taken the military option off the table.

"We believe the timing is right, now, to go and underscore the unity of the international community that Iran must suspend its nuclear uranium enrichment, and then we can talk about negotiations from there," Perino said, maintaining that the meeting was a "one-time U.S. participation."

Still, the decision to send Burns to the meeting breaks with long-standing policy under which the United States had insisted it would not meet with Iranian officials outside of talks on the security situation in Iraq unless Iran had already suspended enrichment and reprocessing.

Iran and the United States broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and hostage crisis and the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and official contacts between the two countries are extremely rare. Although Washington is key part of a six-nation effort on Iran's nuclear program, it has shunned direct talks with Tehran on the matter.

Officials denied an all-out policy shift, although they allowed that a not-so-subtle shift was under way, partly intended to take advantage of what Washington sees as internal rifts in Tehran over whether to accept the package of incentives presented by the United States, the other four members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany.

"There's no change in the substance, but it sends a strong signal," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

He downplayed suggestions the administration had adopted the same course it has taken with North Korea but said Burns' mission was roughly the same as those of diplomats engaged in talks with Pyongyang.

"If you're trying to confront a tough issue, it helps to highlight the contrasts, various pathways, various consequences, both negative and positive for certain decisions by the party at hand, in one case, North Korea, in the other case, Iran," McCormack said.

At the White House, Perino said the meeting would sharpen the contrast for the Iranian people of life under the current regime there, compared with the opportunities they could have if Iran accepts the incentives deal. And, she added, the meeting will "further clarify the consequences" if Iran does not accept the incentives.

Iranian officials vehemently deny their nuclear program is intended for anything other than civilian power production, but the international community, particularly the United States, suspects it is trying to secretly develop an atomic bomb.

Saturday's meeting will come at a time of heightened tensions between the United States and Iran, especially after Iranian missile tests last week prompted President Bush's top aides to warn that the United States would defend its friends and interests in the Middle East.

The tensions have also spilled over into the U.S. presidential campaign.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has advocated for direct diplomacy with Iran and welcomed the decision to send Burns to Geneva, calling for continued engagement with Tehran. "Now that the United States is involved, it should stay involved with the full strength of our diplomacy," he said in a statement.

Republican John McCain, meanwhile, has been more cautious about talks with Iran and had supported the administration's non-engagement policy. His campaign had no immediate comment on the new development.

Nicolas Sarkozy, terrorist-loving traitor?

Michael Stickings — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:11:12 EDT

Syrian President Bashar Assad was in Paris recently to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. And, as the BBC is reporting, the two got along rather well. Sarkozy was set to host a meeting between Assad and Lebanese President Michel Suleiman, a meeting that could lead to renewed diplomatic ties between Syria and Lebanon. Meanwhile, Sarkozy has announced that he will visit Syria later this year.

All in all, "[t]he Paris visit [was] a big boost for [Assad], helping Syria to break out of its diplomatic isolation." All thanks to Nicolas Sarkozy.

That is, George W. Bush's friend Nicolas Sarkozy.

Bush and Sarkozy are good buddies, you see, not like Bush and Chirac, and Sarkozy is about as pro-American (and pro-Bush) a French president as one is likely to find in a country that is famous for being anti-American, or at least generally hostile to America in a friendly love-hate sort of way.

But now that Sarkozy has shown himself to be such a good friend to Assad? Will that not drive a wedge into his friendship with Bush? After all, Bush is an all-or-nothing, with-us-or-against-us, good-and-evil sort of guy. And, while Syria may not be Iraq (and Assad not Saddam), it is certainly not "one of us" in Bush's worldview.

Rabbi Lerner invited by Saudi King to International Interfaith Conference in Madrid Starting Wednesday

Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:43:03 EDT

News Release July 15, 2008 from Tikkun MagazineTikkun magazine today announced that Rabbi Michael Lerner has accepted the invitation extended to him by the King of Saudi Arabia to attend an international conference of Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious leaders that will begin Wed. July 16 in Madrid, Spain. The conference seeks to foster interfaith dialogue and mutual understanding.Lerner expressed some degree of hope and some degree of skepticism about this gathering. On the one hand, Lerner believes that bringing together Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders can only be for the good. Lerner's synagogue, Beyt Tikkun (in San Francisco and Berkeley, California) is currently working on recreating the Noe Valley Ministry in San Francisco as a place of worship for all three Abrahamic faiths, sharing the same building and sharing some religious teachings and spiritual wisdom. Last year on Rosh Hashanah Rabbi Lerner brought Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, a Muslim scholar who has been a major voice for interfaith cooperation and respect in the Muslim world, to read and chant in Arabic at Beyt Tikkun the Muslim story in the Koran of the binding of Isaac immediately after the Jewish version in the Torah was read. Often, in part because of the fear that Muslims have been living under in the US post-9/11, it has been difficult to get many Muslims to participate in these interfaith gatherings, so Rabbi Lerner praised the role of the King of Saudi Arabia in arranging for many Muslims to be present in Madrid. On the other hand, Rabbi Lerner also acknowledged the possibility that this might simply be a cheaper way of the Saudis earning public relations credit globally at a time when they could have earned those credits in a more significant way--by dramatically increasing oil production in Saudi Arabia which would have then lowered the cost of oil around the world, a step that would have benefitted the world's poor who are suffering from the rising oil prices. Or, Rabbi Lerner contends, they could have announced an end to the Saudi ban on the practice of other religions in Saudi Arabia besides Islam--a ban that is not shared by any other Muslim country in the world. Or they could have indicated a willingness to fund Palestinian refugees living in refugee camps around the Arab world. Lerner noted that the Saudis have done very little to provide the billions of dollars of material aid to the Palestinian people that they desparately need while suffering under the Israeli occupation. Significant Saudi investment in the West Bank and Gaza could have provided for housing and indoor plumbing and jobs for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians had the solidarity the Saudis often expressed for their Muslim brothers and sisters been turned from anti-Israel rhetoric to concrete material support for the Palestinian people. Still, Lerner said, the King is obviously trying to turn the tide of Muslim sentiment away from the violent extemists, and this deserves some real credit. Rabbi Lerner says that if the King would meet with him in Madrid, he will raise these issues, as well as the need to start educating the Muslim world to seeing Israel as a potential ally rather than a permanent enemy. A first step in that direction, Lerner says, is to sit and talk together, and he hopes that religious leaders like himself can elevate the dialogue from the "who is to blame for what has happened" to "how can we move forward to create more love, kindness and generosity of spirit between these three religious communities.Other religious leaders attending the gathering include the Archbishop of Canterberry (head of the Anglican church), representatives of the Vatican, the religious historian Karen Armstrong, the most respected Catholic theologian in the world Hans Kung and the Chief Rabbi of England, Jonathan Sachs. Rabbi Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine and one of America's most respected contemporary theologians. His book Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Transformation (Harpers, 1995) was hailed as "taking its place alongside the work of Martin Buber and Abraham Joshua Heschel" and Professor of Religion Cornel West, commenting on Lerner's book The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right (2006--a NY TImes national bestseller) said that Lerner "is the most significant prophetic public intellectual and spiritual leader of our generation." Lerner is also well known as editor of Tikkun Magazine, started as "the liberal alternative to Commentary magazine and the voices of Jewish conservatism," and as the most prominent rabbi in America who is both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine, and for insisting that Palestinians and Muslims are equally precious to God as Israelis and Jews (a view that has made him controversial among some in the Jewish world). Lerner is also chair of the interfaith Network of Spiritual Progressives--NSP (www.spiritualprogressives.org), an organizaiton with thousands of members throughout the US and Canada. The Network of Spiritual Progressives-NSP primary focus is on what it calls "A New Bottom Line" in American society, one that values love, caring, kindness, generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity, and awe and wonder at the grandeur of the universe. Many people who don't affiliate with any religion or traditional beliefs in God have joined the Network of Spiritual Progressives which proclaims that it is open to "spiritual but not religious" people as well. The major way that the NSP advocates for a New Bottom Line is through advancing a detailed NSP version of a Global Marshall Plan (to change the terms of international trade agreements, and to have the US and other G8 countries dedicate 1-2% of their GDP each year for the next twenty to "once and for all end domestic and global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, inadequate heath care, and to repair the global environment), a plan which was recently endorsed by several Congresspeople who introduced it as House Resolution 1078. Lerner will be presenting these ideas both in Madrid and at meetings in Denver with the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. Rabbi Lerner can be reached for interviews through Tikkun Magazine: Will@tikkun.org or 510 644 1200.The conference begins with an initial presentation by Saudi King Abdullah . King Juan Carlos of Spain and Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero and Muslim World Leagie Secretary-General Abdullah Al-Turki will address the opening session.The fist session, titled "Dialogue and Its Religious and Civilizational Foundations," will be chaired by Bawa Jain, secretary-general of the Millennium World Peace Summit. Hussain Hamid Hassan of Dubai Islamic Bank will speak on "Dialogue in Islam," while Lebanese Minister of Culture Tariq Mitri, a member of the World Council of Churches, will speak on "Dialogue in Christianity." Arthur Schneir of Appeal of Conscience Foundation in the US and M.M. Verma, director of Interfaith Foundation in India, will also address the session.Saleh Bin-Humaid, president of the Saudi Shoura Council, will preside over the second session that will focus on "Dialogue and Its Importance in Society." Nichiko Niwano, president, the Committee of World Parliament for Religion and Peace, Japan, will present a paper on "Dialogue and Interaction of Cultures and Civilizations," while professor Federico Mayor Zaragoza, president of the Cultural Foundation for Peace in Spain, will speak on Dialogue and its Impact on Peaceful Coexistence. Abdulhadi Tazi, a member of the Moroccan Academy, will present a paper on "Dialogue and Its Impact on International Relations," while Redwan Al-Sayyed, chairman of the International Institute for Islamic Studies in Lebanon, will speak on the topic, "Dialogue in the Face of Calls for the Clash of Civilizations and End of History."The third session on "Common Human Values in Areas of Dialogue," chaired by William F. Vendley, secretary-general of the World Conference of Religions for Peace in the US, will be held on Thursday. Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); Muhammad Ali Taskheeri, secretary-general of the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thought in Iran; Shankaracharya Omkar Anand Saraswati of India; and Miguel Angel Ayuso Guixot, rector of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue at the Vatican, will present papers.The fourth session on "Evaluation and Promotion of Dialogue" will be chaired by Rabbi Caudio Epelman, secretary-general of the Jewish Congress in Latin America and the Caribbean. The speakers are: Ezzuddin Mustafa of the UAE, Xue Cheng of the Buddhist Association of China, Econos Haddad of Jordan's Center for Religious Coexistence, and Nabil Luka Bibawi, member of Egypt's Shoura Council.The concluding session will start at 10 a.m. Friday when Abdul Rahman Al-Zaid, assistant secretary of the MWL, will read out the final communiqué.More Info: Will@tikkun.org 510 644 1200 or RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org

It Takes a School, Not Missiles

Chinni — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:48:46 EDT

Haven't read "Three Cups of Tea" yet. I should..

It Takes a School, Not Missiles

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF July 13, 2008

..Each Tomahawk missile that the United States fires in Afghanistan costs at least $500,000. That’s enough for local aid groups to build more than 20 schools, and in the long run those schools probably do more to destroy the Taliban.
The Pentagon, which has a much better appreciation for the limits of military power than the Bush administration as a whole, placed large orders for “Three Cups of Tea” and invited Mr. Mortenson to speak...

Rational minds on Iraq and Iran

Sheldon from Doylestown — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:58:09 EDT

Obama Gets Help From Iraq's Prime Minister and from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

http://www.slate.com/id/2195134/ By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, July 10, 2008, at 5:55 PM ET Barack Obama

It's been a good week for Sen. Barack Obama. National security is the one area where his opponent, Sen. John McCain, holds an advantage in the polls. Yet on the two most contentious security issues—Iran and Iraq—Obama's views have now been endorsed by two of the most unassailably authoritative figures: the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. armed forces and the prime minister of Iraq.

When it comes to military matters, McCain the war hero might get away with pulling rank on the junior senator from Illinois—but he can't claim more experience than those two.

The stab from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turned into a comedy routine. Maliki stated this week that he would not sign any treaty allowing U.S. armed forces to remain on his nation's soil—the current accord, known as a Status of Forces Agreement, expires at the end of this month—unless it includes a timetable for their withdrawal.

Obama has called for just such a timetable. McCain has opposed one, famously saying that a substantial number of U.S. combat troops might need to stay in Iraq for another 100 years.

When asked about Maliki's statement, McCain told reporters that it had been mistranslated—to which Maliki responded that, no, the English version was correct. At that point, some of McCain's supporters said that the prime minister wasn't serious, that he'd been forced by political constituencies to demand a timetable. Maliki again insisted that he meant what he'd said. (Even if he was caving to political pressures, one could infer that this suggests a majority of Iraqis and their major parties want us to commit to getting out in the not-too-distant future.)

It's a rather awkward situation for McCain, who did publicly say four years ago at the Council on Foreign Relations that if an elected government of Iraq asked us to leave, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave," adding, "I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."

Meanwhile, Maliki's insistence on this score makes life a lot easier for Obama. McCain pressured him into planning a trip to Iraq this summer—he hadn't been there for two years—so he can see the place up close before making judgments about its future. While he's there, Obama will be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus and other commanders; he'll probably also talk with junior officers and enlisted men, and with Iraqi politicians, too. Security in Iraq is better than it was a year ago. To some degree, this improvement is the result of George W. Bush's surge (combined with Petraeus' strategy, Muqtada Sadr's cease-fire, the paying of many insurgents to stop shooting at us, and, most important, the alliance between U.S. forces and Sunni insurgents against the common enemy of al-Qaida—an alliance initiated by the Sunnis before the surge began). It might have been awkward for Obama to praise the troops' accomplishments then rapidly pull them out. But he could say, "If our friend the Iraqi prime minister wants us to set a schedule for withdrawing, well, how could any president of the United States insist otherwise?"

Obama also got a boost this week from reports in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz that Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told top officials of the Israeli Defense Forces that the United States would not give them a "green light" to launch airstrikes on Iran.

This is not merely a political statement. To send fighter-bombers to attack Iran, the Israelis would need permission to fly over Iraq on the way. Maliki certainly wouldn't approve such a plan; Mullen was saying that President Bush wouldn't, either.

Obama has said that the situation in Iran—the continued enrichment of uranium, the recent test-firing of missiles, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's persistently belligerent rhetoric—calls for a full-court diplomatic press. This means economic pressure but also direct talks. Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have said much the same thing in public, noting that an attack would merely delay, not halt, Iran's nuclear program and that Iranian retaliation to an airstrike could do far greater damage—especially economic—to the United States and its allies.

McCain hasn't called for military action (except for the standard boilerplate of keeping "all options on the table"), but he refuses to consider direct talks—thus leaving us in the same hole we're in now.

Once more: advantage Obama.

ALL ABOARD!!!

Inspired in Florida - a Recovering Republican — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:44:56 EDT

Barack on the Peace Train

End the war, and end the mindset that got us into war We've got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we've got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.

But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn't have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.

I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don't want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008

SING ALONG WITH ME!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n16T35yx3nY

Now I've been happy lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun

Oh I've been smiling lately,
dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be,
some day it's going to come

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again

Now I've been smiling lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun

Oh peace train sounding louder
Glide on the peace train
Come on now peace train
Yes, peace train holy roller

Everyone jump upon the peace train
Come on now peace train

Get your bags together,
go bring your good friends too
Cause it's getting nearer,
it soon will be with you

Now come and join the living,
it's not so far from you
And it's getting nearer,
soon it will all be true

Now I've been crying lately,
thinking about the world as it is
Why must we go on hating,
why can't we live in bliss

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home againO'BAMA '08 FIRED UP!!!

Peace to All

Tamera, Proud Supporter of Senator Obama — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:02:26 EDT

Peace cannot be achieved through violence, it can only be attained through understanding.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Mohandas Gandhi

I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it.
Thomas Jefferson

Yes, we love peace, but we are not willing to take wounds for it, as we are for war.
John Andrew Holmes

Peace begins with a smile.

Mother Teresa

Great quotes from intelligent men and women. Peace is what the world needs. God Bless

Iran - Let Them Eat Nukes

Mark Levin — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 23:35:04 EDT

Obama yesterday:

"Through its nuclear program, missile capability, meddling in Iraq, support for terrorism, and threats against Israel, Iran now poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States in the region in a generation."

Huh?! Obama is going off the deep end on Iran in his campaign Nascarization and quixotic quest for the Florida Jewish vote. He has essentially reversed his position on talking to Iran - no one will want to talk to you if you keep spitting in their face. "Greatest strategic challenge..in a generation"? He's giving hyperbole a bad name! We face much greater strategic challenges in repairing our global brand, keeping our middle class standard of living where it has been in this flattening world, dealing with an energy-intensive lifestyle, and finding the political will to mitigate climate change.

Did Jesse Jackson's emasculating jibe make Barack think he needed to show he still had a pair?

I'm not sure what gives us the moral right to make the demands from Iran we have been making. Some questions on basic fairness on the four problems he has with Iran:

Nuclear program

I don't like any country getting nukes, but where do we get off our hypocritical pontificating? If we could live with a nuclear Soviet Union - guess what - we and Israel - can live with a nuclear Iran. Despite what Obama and our politicians have to say.

- We have thousands of nukes and have actually used them in combat on civilian populations. Why does another nation have less rights than us to have nukes?

- We have no problem with a country having nukes in the Mideast, as long as it's not a Muslim country. Does that make us racist? Israel has 150-200; would they give theirs up if all Middle Eastern countries and Iran agreed to no nukes?

- North Korea flouted the NPT and was never threatened with what we/Israel are threatening Iran with

- Didn't our NIE discover they had stopped their program in 2003?

- Why don't we allow them to enrich uranium as much as they want under UN monitoring, as long as they stick to their existing pledge not to weaponize? Some countries want to know that they can actually pull off some technological feat - like Pakistan and India - and South Africa deweaponized after actually developing nukes

- Shouldn't we pay more attention to a country that (1) has nukes and (2) is home to the al Qaeda leadership, instead of a country that is using the nuclear issue to show off their independence, new status, technological prowess and machismo - and has no nukes? Did the Iraq imbroglio happen that long ago? Saddam kept things ambiguous to save face. We underestimate how much appearances mean.

Missile capability

- Did Iran sign some pact to not enhance its military prowess?

- How would we react if a politician of a country on the other side of the planet objected to our testing our missiles on our soil?

- Would we ever ask Israel to not test their missiles or step back from signalling with refuelling wargames in the Mediterranean?

Support for Terrorism

- He's on more solid ground here, but just because we call Hezbollah a terrorist group officially, it doesn't mean they've brought more terror on civilians than we have in that region. Our initiative led to the death of a million civilians in Iraq. See my blog for the bodycounts.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/marklevin

- We've been arming militias in Iraq and so has Iran - there's a symmetry here

- Iran-Hamas links are tenuous; a Shiite-Sunni divide exists and the support is necessarily more moral than logistical given Gaza's isolation

Threats against Israel

- We clearly don't derive any strategic benefit from our embrace of Israel, so Israel should be as important as any ally to us - like UK or Japan - but not more than that - but yes, politically it does matter in this election because enough people believe protecting Israel from all potential adversaries is right after our national security

- Ahmadinejad, the source of our fear, is closer to the power of our freshmen Senators when it comes to military affairs. He is not their commander-in-chief - that is the role of the Supreme Leader. From Wikipedia: "commandment of the armed forces and declaration of war and peace, remain in the hands of the Supreme Leader."

- We have popularized his statements in the most sinister way to paint him like a new Hitler; I think he's 1% as evil as Saddam ever was - at most. "Wiping Israel off the map" is not a call for genocide. Wikipedia: According to Juan Cole (most experts agree with him), "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

Hmm...wanting regime change! Have we ever expressed such views about other countries? Should we be bombed for that or have to stop enhancing our weaponry? We condemn Iran for wanting the area to be secular and not Jewish, but would we ever condemn the PM of the UK with this vehemence and accuse him of signalling genocide if he criticized Muslim countries for not being secular states? That said, I think Ahmadinejad is just not very well read, if he still thinks that what happened in the gassing of Jews, Gypsies and undesirables by Hitler is an open question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

An ignorant leader who is not their commander-in-chief is not enough of a reason for us to participate in or tacitly condone Israeli airstrikes. That we're even talking about it or how Obama is saber-rattling shows how dumb as a country we've become. Stupid leaders exist everywhere. Should we be bombed for having Dubya? Should South Africa be bombed for Mbeki who doesn't believe that HIV causes AIDS?

I'm playing Devil's advocate here to some degree.

Iraq Wants us Out

Dena, St. Thomas — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:52:07 EDT

John Soltz in the Huffington Post writes, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/the-flip-flopper-on-iraq_b_111551.html

"Late yesterday, [July 7] Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki said it's time for the US to leave, or set a timetable to leave.

There you have it. The Iraqis are basically telling the US that they endorse Obama's policy -- they want us to set a timetable to bring the troops home. John McCain in 2004 said we'd respect such a request, telling the Council on Foreign Relations:

Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it's obvious that we would have to leave because -- if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we've been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.

I just checked the McCain campaign website, and so far, he hasn't announced today that he will respect the sovereign government of Iraq, and adjust his Iraq policy to include a timeline for bringing troops home."

HR 362 an Alarming Escalation of Hostility Towards Iran

Amunaor — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 02:36:08 EDT

by Alan Nasser

The Demands of HR 362

HR 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, calls for the president to enact more draconian economic sanctions against Iran. These include an embargo against any imports of refined petroleum. (While Iran is of course a major exporter of oil, it imports at least 40% of its refined petroleum.) The wording of the Resolution is chilling in the extreme: “Congress… demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by… prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products......

The “stringent inspection requirements” listed would require a naval blockade, thereby constituting an act of war. And this is how the resolution would be perceived by virtually all Iranians........

Congressional Democrats, the IAEA and Factual Falsehoods in HR 362

There is more support now than there was a year ago in Congress, especially among the Democrats, for military action against Iran. Thus HR 362’s co-sponsors include 96 House Democrats and 111 House Republicans. These are the same Democrats whom Americans voted into Congress, in November 2006, as majorities in both houses, based on what voters believed to be the Democrats’ opposition to war in the Middle East.

To add insult to injury, HR 362 justifies its content with demonstrably false accusations about Iran’s nuclear program. The Resolution charges that Iran’s importing and manufacturing of centrifuges are “covert” and “illicit.” But under both the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, and Iran’s agreements with the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), these activities are entirely permitted. The IAEA has publicly stated its support of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, which it states is in full accord with all treaty requirements to which Iran is subject.

Late last October IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei remarked to CNN: “Have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. … I very much have concern building confrontation, because that would lead to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiations and inspections. My fear is that if we continue to escalate from both sides that we would end up on a precipice, we would end up in an abyss.” ElBaradei’s most recent statements repeatedly echo these October remarks.

The Role of AIPAC

That HR 362 has been so warmly received on Capitol Hill is a sad testimony to Congress’s willing dependence on external interests which cannot be assumed to be identical to those of most Americans. The Resolution is known to have been initially drafted by the American-Israeli lobby AIPAC. In early June AIPAC sent more than a thousand lobbyists to Congress to whip up support for this Resolution.

Congress’s well known subordination to AIPAC’s agenda should not be construed as a democratic response to the wishes of the American Jewish community. Polls show that more than 80% of Jewish-Americans oppose an attack on Iran. Congress’s compliance to AIPAC’s interests amounts to obeisance to a foreign State, not to any domestic constituency.......

Full Story:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/08/10204/

***

By the way, as of Dec. 2007, Iran began trading oil in Euros, which is why empiricist Bush is getting an itchy trigger finger.

Peace, Best Wishes and Hope

Iraqi Officials Insisting on Timetable to Withdraw

Sheldon from Doylestown — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 00:22:57 EDT

Iraqi Officials Insisting On Timetable To Withdraw

By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON

Published: July 9, 2008

BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials continued to insist Tuesday that a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops must be included in any security agreement with the United States.

Meanwhile, in western Anbar Province, 22 bodies were found at a Ramadi elementary school that was undergoing construction, 20 of them buried in the playing fields, apparently over a lengthy period, the local police said.

Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, said the government would reject any security agreement that did not include a schedule for the departure of foreign troops.

“We will not accept a memorandum of understanding without having timeline horizons for the cessation of combat operations as well as the departure of all the combat brigades,” Mr. Rubaie said in a telephone interview. However, he declined to offer specifics on a timeline, suggesting that the Iraqi government itself was not yet sure how quickly it wanted the United States to withdraw.

Earlier in the day, Mr. Rubaie was in the holy city of Najaf meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shiite religious leader. The ayatollah has not expressed an opinion on the specifics of the negotiations, emphasizing only that Iraq must protect its sovereignty.

Mr. Rubaie’s remarks came a day after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki confirmed that his government was considering a short-term pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American troops but also include a timetable for withdrawal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?ref=world

The Mind & The Obama Magic

Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:26:19 EDT

By George Lakoff

Barack Obama should not move, or even appear to be moving, toward right-wing views on issues -- even with nuanced escape clauses. Arianna Huffington, Paul Krugman, and the NY Times Editorial Page all agree, for various reasons. I agree as well, for many of the same reasons, as well as important reasons that go beyond even excellent political commentary. My reasons have to do with results in the cognitive and brain sciences, as discussed in my recent book, The Political Mind: Why You Can't Understand 21st Century Politics with an 18th Century Brain. But before I get into the details, it is important to get a sense of why Obama might be "moving to the Right." There are at least three possibilities. The first is for political expediency. The second is to reassure voters that he is a responsible leader, not a crazy radical. The third is that he thinks that nuanced positions don't have the effect of the moving to the right. Let's start with the first possibility -- expediency, the one assumed by most observers. The Political Expediency Argument The usual political wisdom is (1) voters vote on the basis of positions on issues, (2) there is a left-to-right spectrum of voters defined by positions on issues, (3) most voters are in the "center." Polls are constructed to appear consistent with this tri-partite hypothesis. The Dick Morris strategy, based on this hypothesis, says: if a Democrat moves the Right, he will get more votes because he will "take away" the other side's issues. If Obama and his advisors believe this, then the more they more to the Right, the bigger their win should be. But all three hypotheses are false, and so is the conclusion based on it. First, voters mostly vote not on the details of positions on issues, but on five aspects of what might be called "character," as Richard Wirthlin discovered in the 1980 Reagan campaign. They are Values (What are the ethical principles that form the basis of your politics?); Authenticity (Do you say what you believe?); Communication (Do you connect with voters and inspire them?); Judgment; Trust; and Identity (If you share voters' values, connect with them, tell them the truth effectively while inspiring trust, then they will identify with you -- and they will voter for you. Positions on issues matter when they come to stand symbolically for values. Reagan and George W. Bush understood this. Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry did not. And in the primaries. Hillary Clinton did not get it (she focused on policy, while Obama and McCain focused more on character, on who he was). Values, authenticity, communication, judgment, and trust are not irrational reasons for voting for a president, even over positions on specific issues. The reason is that situations change, and what you rationally wind up depending on are just those virtues.

Americans Don't Know: There's A Plan On The Table To End The Nuclear Standoff

Shodja Ziaian — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:46:52 EDT

Just Foreign Policy:

Here's what those promoting military attacks and blockades on Iran don't want Americans to know: there's an offer on the table that could resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program and allow both sides to claim victory.

Help us spread the word by watching and forwarding this video, in which former US Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering makes the case for talks with Iran, without pre-conditions, on multilateral uranium enrichment in Iran:

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/diplomacy

While polls consistently show most Americans want negotiations with Iran to resolve the nuclear dispute, most Americans don't know that there's an offer on the table right now to resolve the dispute that the US government is walking away from.